(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Minutes"

^/ s 




San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/5minutes2001sanf 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 



Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, November 07, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez, Jake McGoldrick. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:12 a.m. 

011883 [Prop J Contract, Pacific Park Management. Inc.] 

Resolution approving: (1) The Controller's certification that Employee Parking Management Sendees for San 
Francisco International Airport can practically be performed by private contractor at a lower cost than if work 
were performed by city employees at budgeted levels, and (2) The contract between Pacific Park Management, 
Inc., and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission, to provide said 
services. (Airport Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

10/16/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011 884 | Airport Operating Agreement] 

Resolution approving the Airport Public Facilities Operating Agreement between Ampco System Parking and 
the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

(Supervisor Peskin dissenting in Committee) 
10/16/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at .?:ff5 PM on 3 3 IN 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 7, 2001 



011374 [City Budget Review) 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing to review possible improvements to the process by which the Board of Supervisors annually reviews 

the City budget. 

7/23/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington, 

Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of 

Public Health; Trent Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; 

Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey 

(youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan 

Oliver; Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's Budget 

Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Services Network; Jon Osaki; Larry Lattimore, POWER; Calvin 

Davis, POWER; Richard Heasley, Executive Director, Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human 

Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Supervisors; Theodore 

Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, McGoldrick 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



011764 [City's Budget Process] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Hearing to address the City's current budget process. This hearing will explore (1) how citizen participation in 
this budget can be expanded; (2) how consideration of the City's annual budgets can occur through an 
increasingly policy-centered dialogue; (2) how to better educate the local populace on the budget process and 
incorporate public feedback from individuals and local community groups in budget-oriented decision making. 
10/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington. 
Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of 
Public Health; Trent Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; 
Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey 
(youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan 
Oliver; Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's Budget 
Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Services Network; Jon Osaki; Larry Lattimore, POWER; Calvin 
Davis, POWER; Richard Heasley, Executive Director, Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human 
Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Super\'isors; Theodore 
Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, McGoldrick 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:05 PM on 3/3/04 

3 1223 06446 5934 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



November 7, 2001 



1 1 800 [Reviewing Annual Budget] 
Supervisor McGoldrick 

Resolution setting priorities and amending processes of the Board of Supervisors in reviewing the annual 
budget of City departments submitted by the Mayor. 
10/9/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. 
10/29/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington, 
Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of 
Public Health; Trent Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; 
Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey 
(youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan 
Oliver; Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's Budget 
Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Services Network; Jon Osaki; Larry Lattimore, POWER; Calvin 
Davis, POWER; Richard Heasley, Executive Director. Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human 
Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Supervisors; Theodore 
Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

Amended on page 2 by deleting lines 1 7 through 20. Further amended on page 5 by deleting lines 1 through 
3, lines 9 through 15, and the words "and, be it" on line 8. 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, McGoldrick 
Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



011836 [Public Comment on Mayor's Proposed Annual Budget] 
Supervisor McGoldrick 

Motion changing Rule of the Board of Supervisors to provide for review and comment by the public of the 
Mayor's proposed annual budget prior to action by the Board of Supervisors on items within the budget. 
10/9/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. 
10/29/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington. 
Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of 
Public Health; Trent Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; 
Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey 
(youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan 
Oliver; Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's Budget 
Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Services Network; Jon Osaki; Larry Lattimore, POWER; Calvin 
Davis, POWER; Richard Heasley, Executive Director, Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human 
Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Supervisors; Theodore 
Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, McGoldrick 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at .?:05 /Mr on 3 .? II J 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 7, 2001 



011838 |City Department Budgets! 
Supervisor McGoldrick 

Motion establishing process for review of City Department Budgets by various Committees of Board of 

Supervisors. 

10/9/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. 

10/29/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington, 

Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of 

Public Health; Trent Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; 

Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey 

(youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan 

Oliver; Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's Budget 

Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Sen'ices Network; Jon Osaki; Larry Lattimore, POWER; Calvin 

Davis, POWER; Richard Heasley, Executive Director, Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human 

Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Supervisors; Theodore 

Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, McGoldrick 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



011839 |Office of Legislative Analyst] 
Supervisor McGoldrick 

Motion setting priority on budget policy analysis for Office of Legislative Analyst. 

10/9/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. 

10/29/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington, 

Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of 

Public Health; Trent Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; 

Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey 

(youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan 

Oliver: Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's Budget 

Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Sen'ices Network; Jon Osaki; Lany Lattimore, POWER; Calvin 

Davis, POWER; Richard Heasley, Executive Director, Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human 

Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Supervisors; Theodore 

Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, McGoldrick 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 3:06 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 7, 2001 



011848 [New Deadline for Submission of Budget to Board of Supervisors] 
Supervisors McGoldrick, Daly 

Ordinance amending Aclministrative Code Sections 3.3 and 3.4 to require the Mayor to submit the proposed 

budget to the Board of Supervisors by April 30 for the 2002-2003 budget, and by February 28 of each year for 

subsequent budgets, and revising the deadlines for City departments to submit budgets to the Controller, and 

for the Controller to submit the consolidated budget to the Mayor, in order to reflect the new deadlines for 

submission to the Board of Supervisors. 

10/15/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. 

10/29/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington, 
Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of 
Public Health; Trent Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; 
Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey 
(youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan 
Oliver; Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's Budget 
Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Sendees Network; Jon Osaki; Larry Lattimore, POWER; Calvin 
Davis, POWER; Richard Heasley, Executive Director, Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human 
Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Supervisors ; Theodore 
Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
Continued to November 14. 2001. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, McGoldrick 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



1 1 986 [Anticipated Shortfall in 200 1 Tax Revenue] 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing on the Mayor's plans to address the anticipated shortfall in current year tax revenues. 

10/29/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Julie Brenaman, Department of 

Human Services; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Andrea Gourdine, 

Director, Department of Human Resources; Jason Negrone, POWER; John Bardis. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, McGoldrick 

Absent: 2 - Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Primted at 3:0t, /' \i on -' .? 04 



[Budget Analyst Report] 
0.3L5 Susan Horn 



h/oi 




Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 

CITY AND COUNTY ^^^MJM 0F S ^ N FRAN( -' 1SI - U 

. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

v — 

BUDGET ANALYST 
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 

November 1, 20C1 
TO: <, Finance Committee n n/Mn., 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FROM: - Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

V SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Item 1 - File 01-1883 

Department: Airport 

Item: Resolution (a) approving Controller's certification that 

employee parking management services for the San 
Francisco International Airport can continue to be 
practically performed by a private contractor at a lower 
cost for the year commencing July 1, 2001 than if the 
work were performed by City and County employees, and 
(b) approving an operating agreement (contract) between 
Pacific Park Management Inc., and the City and County 
of San Francisco, acting by and through its xAirport 
Commission, to provide parking management services at 
the Airport. 

EMPLOYEE PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES 
PROPOSITION J APPROVAL 

Services to be 

Performed: Employee parking management services 

Description: Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 

contract with private firms for services, if the Controller 
certifies, and the Board of Supervisors concurs, that such 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



services can in fact be performed by private firms at a 
lower cost than similar work performed by City 
employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for 
employee parking management services at the Airport for 
FY 2001-2002 would result m estimated savings as 
follows: 

Lowest Highest 

Salary Salary 

Citv-Operated Service Costs Step Step 



Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 
Total 

Contractual Services Costs 1 
Estimated Savings 



$2,559,193 
736,755 



$3,027,553 
810,381 



$3,295,948 $3,837,934 

2.285,058 2,511.841 
$ 1,010,890 $1,326,093 



1. Employee parking management services at the Airport 
include management of parking operations for Airport, 
airline and concession employees, security guard services 
and janitorial services, according to Ms. Vicki Sundstrom 
of the Airport. 

2. The subject management services were first certified 
as contractual services as required under Proposition J 
(Charter Section 10.104) in 1971, and have been 
continuously provided by an outside contract since then. 

3. Ms. Sundstrom advises that ABC Parking Inc./THOR 
provided employee parking management services to the 
Airport from September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2001. 
The Airport had a one-year contract with ABC Parking 
Inc./THOR from September 1, 1999 through August 31, 
2000 with four one-year extensions. According to Ms. 
Sundstrom, the Airport exercised one of the four one-year 
contract extensions with ABC Parking Inc./THOR from 



1 Contractual Services Costs include contract monitoring by the Airport. When calculating salaries at 
the highest salary step, such costs increase by $-1,031 annually. Contractual Services Costs also 
include a high and low estimate of the management fee, including a profit and overhead portion. 
When calculating at the highest salary step, such contract cost increase by $222,752, for a total 
Contractual Services cost increase of $226,783. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2001. Since 
August 31, 2001, Ampco System Parking (Ampco) has 
provided temporary interim employee parking 
management services under Ampco's contract with the 
Airport to provide other parking management services 
including public and employee parking services. Ampco's 
contract to provide such parking management services 
was temporarily expanded to include the employee 
parking management services previously handled by ABC 
Parking Inc./THOR pending Board of Supervisors 
approval of the subject proposed new contract for 
employee parking management services which is 
estimated to begin on January 3, 2002. 

4. Attachment I to this report, provided by the Airport, 
is the Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses. Ms. Sundstrom advises that 
Attachment I incorrectly shows that the contract period is 
November 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001. The 
correct contract period is January 3, 2002 through 
January 2, 2003. 

EMPLOYEE PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES 
OPERATING AGREEMENT 

Purpose of Operating 

Agreement: To provide for the operation and maintenance, including 

security guard and janitorial services, of the following 

four parking facilities at the Airport: 

(1) Lot DD Garage with approximately 3,212 parking 
spaces for Airport, airline and concession employees; 

(2) Lot DD Surface Lot with 1,600 parking spaces for 
Airport, airline and concession employees; 

(3) West Field Garage with 1,722 parking spaces for 
Airport, airline and concession employees; and 

(4) Lot CC Surface Lot with 300 parking spaces for 
Airport, airline and concession employees. 

The proposed operating agreement would cover a total of 
6,834 parking spaces for Airport, airline and concession 
employees. 

Description: The proposed resolution would award a parking operating 

agreement, including security guard and janitorial 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



services, for the Lot DD Garage, the Lot DD Surface Lot, 
the West Field Garage and the Lot CC Surface Lot to 
Pacific Park Management. 



Amount Payable by 
Airport to Pacific 
Park Management: 



Not to exceed $2,808, 336. 64 2 during the first year of the 
proposed operating agreement from January 3, 2002 
through January 2, 2003. Attachment II, provided by the 
Airport, provides budget details for the estimated cost of 
$2,808,336.64 for the proposed operating agreement. 
Attachment III, provided by the Airport, provides budget 
details for the estimated management fee in the amount 
of $271,772 or 9.7 percent of the total estimated operating 
agreement costs of $2,808,336.64. 

In her October 29, 2001 memorandum to the Budget 
Analyst (Attachment IV) Ms. Sundstrom explains that the 
Airport is unable at this time to estimate the cost of the 
proposed operating agreement beyond the first year (the 
operating agreement includes 4-one year options to 
extend this agreement) "due to the current climate caused 
by the events of September 11, 2001." 

According to the terms of the proposed operating 
agreement, the Airport Commission would be required to 
approve the Annual Cost Proposal prepared and 
submitted by Pacific Park Management to the Airport 
during the term of this agreement. This Annual Cost 
Proposal would include the management fee and 
estimated direct costs of operating the employee parking 
facilities. According to Ms. Sundstrom, the Annual Cost 
Proposal, and thus the contractual services costs for 
future years, could vary depending on the level of services 
required by the Airport. However, according to the terms 
of the proposed operating agreement, Pacific Park 
Management cannot incur any expenses for such parking 
operations unless and until the Airport Commission 



- The Controller's certification cost of $2,511,841 does not included operating costs totaling $293,473 
that are estimated to cost the same for the City or a private contractor. When adding these operating 
costs of $293,473 to the Controller's cost estimate of $2,511,841, the Controller's estimated cost 
would become $2,805,314. The Controller's estimate was based on information available in August of 
2001, prior to the negotiation of the new proposed operating agreement, which is estimated to cost 
$2,808,337. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

A 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



approves such expenses, which would occur on an annual 
basis (see Comment No. 4). 

In accordance with Section 6.3 of the proposed operating 
agreement, the management fee, which is estimated at 
$271,772 for the first year of the proposed operating 
agreement, would increase by the percentage increase in 
the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco 
Metropolitan Area provided that the management fee 
cannot increase by more than four percent per year. 



Term of Operating 
Agreement: 



Comments: 



January 3, 2002 through January 2, 2003 (one year). The 
term of the proposed operating agreement could be 
extended annually for four additional years on approval 
by the Airport Commission. Upon the expiration of the 
fourth one-year extension, the operating agreement may 
be further extended on a month-to-month basis. According 
to Section 3.2 of the proposed operating agreement, "Upon 
expiration of this Agreement, with the consent of the 
operator [Pacific Park Management], Director [of the 
Airport] may direct Operator to continue performance of 
the Services on a month-to-month basis, on the same terms 
and conditions of this Agreement, until such time as City 
has engaged another Operator. " 

The Budget Analyst notes that in accordance with the 
terms of the proposed operating agreement, the 
agreement could be extended indefinitely on a month-to- 
month basis without obtaining approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends 
that the proposed operating agreement be amended to 
require Board of Supervisors approval to extend the 
agreement on a month-to-month basis for any period 
beyond 12 months subsequent to the expiration of the 
fourth one-year extension. 

1. On July 27, 2001, the Airport Commission issued a 
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the subject 
management of the parking facilities operating agreement 
including the related security guard and janitorial 
services. Although seven parking operators attended the 
informational conference held on August 15, 2001, only 
one firm, Pacific Park Management, submitted a 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Qualification Package to the Airport. In a memorandum 
to the Budget Analyst from Ms. Cathy Widener of the 
Aii-port (Attachment V). Ms. Widener states "This may 
have occurred because the Minimum Qualifications for 
the contract are difficult for most Small Business 
Enterprise companies to meet." As stated by Ms. 
Sundstrom in Attachment IV, "A three-member panel 
reviewed the submission and determined that the 
minimum qualification requirements, as set forth by the 
RFQ, were met... Since all the necessary requirements set 
forth in the RFQ were met, the Airport recommended the 
award of the contract to Pacific Park Management Inc." 
Attachment V, provided by the Airport, lists the 
newspapers and media agencies where the Airport 
advertised this RFQ. 

2. According to Ms. Sundstrom, the Airport issues 
parking permits to Airport, airline and concession 
employees who want to park in one of the four employee 
parking facilities, including Lot DD Garage, the Lot DD 
Surface Lot, the West Field Garage and the Lot CC 
Surface Lot. The Airport issues parking permits to airline 
and concession employees through their employers. 
Airport employees and employees of the parking facility 
operator do not pay to park in the Airports' employee 
parking facilities. Ms. Sundstrom reports that in calendar 
year (CY) 2000, the Airport generated $4,836,911 in 
revenues from issuing employee parking permits to 
airline and concession employees. During the first three- 
quarters of CY 2001, or January 1, 2001 through 
September 30, 2001, the Airport generated $4,335,164 in 
revenues from issuing employee parking permits to 
airline and concession employees. 

3. Ms. Sundstrom reports that, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000- 
2001, the Airport paid $2,273,814 to ABC Parking 
Inc./THOR, including a management fee of $256,804.56 or 
11.3 percent of total operating agreement costs. The 
proposed estimated management fee of $271,772 payable 
to Pacific Park Management is $14,967 or 5.8 percent 
more than the previous management fee. The previous 
management fee was based on 11.3 percent of the total 
operating agreement costs as compared to the proposed 
management fee which is based on 9.7 percent of the total 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

estimated operating costs. The total estimated payment to 
Pacific Park Management of $2,808,337 is $534,523 or 
23.5 percent more than the payment to ABC Parking 
Inc./THOR in FY 2000-2001. According to Ms. Sundstrom, 
the payment for FY 2000-2001 for employee parking 
management services under the previous contract with 
ABC Parking, Inc./THOR included one full year of 
operation of the Lot DD Garage and West Field Garage, 
but only three months of operation of the Lot DD Surface 
Lot, which began operating as an employee parking lot in 
April of 2001. The proposed operating agreement includes 
one full year of operating the Lot DD Surface Lot and ten 
months of operations for Lot CC. 

4. The Controller's annual certification of costs is subject 
to Board of Supervisors approval for each of the up to four 
additional one-year extensions. 

5. Ms. Sundstrom advises that Pacific Park Management 
would subcontract to the following two firms: (a) Costless 
Maintenance Services for janitorial services at an 
estimated cost of $683,977 and (b) King Security for 
security guard services at an estimated cost of $1,451,360. 
The subcontract cost of $2,135,337 is included in the 
operating agreement budget of $2,808,337. 

Recommendation: In accordance with the Term of Operating Agreement 

Section of this report, continue this proposed resolution to 
the Call of the Chair pending action by the Airport 
Commission to amend the subject operating agreement by 
adding a provision which requires Board of Supervisors 
approval prior to the Airport Commission and Pacific 
Park Management agreeing to extend the operating 
agreement on a month-to-month basis for any period 
beyond 12 months subsequent to the expiration of the 
fourth one-year extension. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



X Attachmert I 

CHARTER 10.104.15 {PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 

DEPARTMENT: Airport Commission 

CONTRACT SERVICES: Airport Employee Parking Facilities Operating A greement 

CONTRACT PERIOD: November 1 . 2001 to September 30. 2002 

(1) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 
This service has been contracted since 1971. 

(2) How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting ouf 
N/A 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
N/A 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent on services to be contracted out? 
N/A 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or an ongoing request for contracting 
out? 

Airport Parking services have been contracted out since 1971. Employee parking Is an expansion of parking service: 
now being contracted out separately since 1999. This Is an on-going request to contract out these services. 

(6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification'' Has it been certified for each subsequent year? 

Employee parking, as a part of Public parking, has been certified each year from 1980 to 1999. Since 1999, 
Employee Parking has been certified every year as a separate contract. 

. (7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

The previous contractor met the MBEWBE goals by subcontracting janitorial and security services. The new contrai 
currently under process calls for 15% MBE and 3% WBE subcontracting goals. The RFQ calls for the candidate to 
achieve the MA/VBE subcontracting goals or demonstrate "good faith efforts" to achieve the goals 

'2) Does the proposed contractor provide health insurance for its employees'? 

The new contract calls for compliance with the San Francisco Health Care Accountability Ordinance (Section 12Q of 
the San Francisco Administrative Code). 

(9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? rf so, are the same benefits provided to 
employees with domestic partners? If not, how does the proposed contractor comply with the Domestic Partners 
ordinance? 

The contract calls for compliance with the Domestic Partners Ordinance. 

(10) Does the proposed contractor pay meet the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance? 
The contract calls for compliance with the Minimum Compensation Ordinance. 



Department Representative: 



rert^hoape?, Depu$ Airport Director - Business and Finance 
Telephone Number. (650)621-4050 



ANNUAL BUDGET 

WESTFIELD, LOT DD GARAGE and LOT DD SURFACE PARKING 



rtxuacnment ii 



Attachment 6 



PAYROLL 



Parking Operators Payroll 



Annual 
Budget 

3159,698.68 



PAYROLL OVERHEAD 
Payroll Taxes 
FICA 
FUI 
SUI 
Total Payroll Taxes 
Employee Benefits 

Total Payroll Overhead 

OTHER EXPENSES 

Accounting Services 

Bank Charges 

Facility Mods & Equip (specific expends.) 

Janitorial Services 

Legal Services 

Management Fee 

Scavenger 

Security and Traffic Control 

Supplies and Service 

Telephone/Communication Expenditures 

Total Other Expenses 

Grand Total 



$21,588.75 
$36,156.00 
S57.744-.75 



$5,732.96 

$264.60 

$157,500.00 

$683,977.00 

$5,512.54 

$271,772.00 

$7,938.00 

$1,451,360.57 

$2,866.54 

$3,969.00 

$2,590,893.21 

$2,808,336.64 



modifieC: S/7/01 



Pacific Park Management, Inc 

Management Fee for Employee Parking Contract 

Fee Components Annual Fee 

General Manager: S70.000.00 

Administrative Assistant: 537,000.00 

Premiums 
Required insurance: 

Workers Compensation S13,574.39 

Commercial General Liability $5 8,080.00 

Business Automobile Liability 57,260.00 

Garage Keeper's Legal Liability $5,080.00 

Burglary and Robbery S2.178.0Q 

Premiums Subtotal 586,174.39 



Required deposit: 52,500 

Overhead and Profit: $76,096.94 

Total Proposed Annual Management Fee: $271,771.33 



Autacnmerx ii. 



Attachment 7 



I.I 1.00 Final Mrmt Fvcs.tloc 



10 



Attachment IV 
?a?e 1 of 3 



San Francisco International Airport 




VTA FACSIMILE TO 415-252-0461 

Ociobcr29, 2001 



P.O. Hnx H097 
5<>n Ff/incisco. CA 9412K 
Tc' S50.821 5non 
Fan 650. f.;i. sons 

WWw.Hynfo com 



COMMISSION 

LITT ANO COUNTY 
OF %AN FKANOSCO 



I.ARHY MA220LA 

MICHACl S.5TBUN5ICY 

LINDft S. OlAYTON 

CARYL ITO 



TO: 



FROM: 



Ms. Anna LaForte 

Board of Supervisors, Finance Committee 




R£: 



Vick Sundstrom 

Airpon Parking Manage-rrieht 

Airport Employee Parking Facilities Operating Agreement 



Per your request, I am providing to you the chronological events for the Airport 
Employee Parking Facilities Request for Qualifications. 

• Request for Qualifications Issued July 27, 2001 

• RFQ & Informational Conference Advertised See attachment 2 

• Press Release sent Sec attachment 3 

• Informational Conference Date August 15, 2001 

• Addendum 1 Issued (See attachment 4) August 23, 2001 

• RFQ due date August 31, 2001 



(OHM L MAKYIN 
4IRPOBT Ollt'croii 



In accordance with the RFQ, the evaluation of qualified parties was based on the 
following: 

Evaluation of Qualifications . All Candidates that satisfy the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements will be evaluated by a panel which is to determine the 
most qualified Candidate based on the following criteria: 



Ownership or Management Experience 
Parking Control System Experience 
Staff Management Experience 
Financial Ability 



50% 
20% 
20% 
10% 



Informationnl Conference 

The informational conference was held on August 1 5, 2001. Seven parking 
operators attended the informational conference. One company requested thai the 
minimum qualifications be reduced. To address this comment, following the 



11 



Attachment IV 
Pape 2 of 3 



meeting, the Airport Minority/Women Outreach Department did some diligence to 
determine if the requirements were too burdensome. Tt appeared as though at least 
three companies could satisfy the requirements so the Airport opted not to reduce 
the minimum requirements. 

Addendum 1, attachment 4, was issued to address minor changes in the RFQ and 
included responses to the questions brought up at the meeting. No material changes 
were made to the RFQ. 

Qualification Submittal 

The Airport received one submission for the RFQ, from Pacific Park Management, 

Inc. A three-member panel reviewed the submission and determined that the 
minimum qualification requirements, as set forth by the RFQ, were met. 

On September 14, 2001, HRC determined that Pacific Park Management is 
responsive to the subcontracting goals as set forth in the RFQ. (Attachment 5). 

Since all ihe necessary requirements set forth in the RFQ were met, the Airport 
recommended the award of the contract to Pacific Park Management Inc. 

Pacific Park Management Inc. was awarded the Airport Employee Parking Facilities 
Operating Agreement for one year with four one-year options to extend the term 
(see "Resolution No. 01-0304" previously sent to the Clerk of the Board). 

Annual Cost Proposal 

Your request for the projections of the Annual Cost Proposal for the four one-year 
options are not available at this time due to the current economic climate caused by 
the events of September 11, 2001. Please be assured that wc will return to the 
Board of Supervisors each year to obtain the Proposition J approvals. 

In drafting the final Operating Agreement, staff and the City Attorney's Office 
ensured that a number of controls were in place, such as: 

In accordance of section 1.17 of the Operating Agreement: 

"Management Fee" means two hundred seventy-one thousand seven 
hundred seventy-two dollars (5271,772) per year, as the same maybe 
adjusted by the CPI each year, as described below. The Management Fee 
has been negotiated between the parties and represents: (a) the salaries of 
the designated Parking Staff, (b) the premiums for all insurance, bonds, and 
deposits required hereunder, and (c) Operator's overhead and profit, as 
shown in Appendix B. If and to the extent the aggregate salaries of the 
Parking Staff are less than the amounts described on Appendix B, then the 
Management Fee shall be reduced accordingly. Director reserves the right to 
approve labor cost components of the fee. Notwithstanding anything to the 
contrary in this Agreement, including Section 6.3, in no event will: (a) the 
"overhead and profit" components of the Management Fee exceed three 
percent (3%) of the Annual Cost Proposal for any year of this Agreement; 



12 



Attachment IV 
Pare 3 of 3 



or (b) the Management Fee exceed twelve percent (12%) of the Annual 
Cost Proposal for any year of this Agreement. 

Section 6.2 Compensation Structure of the Operating Agreement, 

Compensation payable by City to Operator hereunder comprises the 
Management Fee and the Actual Direct Costs. On or before November of 
each year, Operator shall submit to City for City's approval the Annual Cost 
Proposal for the upcoming year, in form satisfactory to Director. The 
Annual Cost Proposal shall set forth the Management Fee and estimated 
Actual Direct Costs. Operator shall incur no expenses under this Agreement 
unless and until the Annual Cost Proposal has been approved in writing by 
Director. Compensation payable to Operator shall be limited each year by 
the amounts set forth in the approved Annual Cost Proposal. City shall have 
no obligation to pay any invoice which indicates that an expense item 
exceeds, or is projected to exceed, the amount therefore specified in the 
Airport- approved Annual Cost Proposal. In the event that the City exercises 
the options to extend the term of this Agreement, for each such extension 
period, Operator shall be required to submit a Annual Cost Proposal in a 
form that is satisfactory to Director. 

Section 6.3 Management Fee Adjustment of the Operating Agreement, 

(a) If and to the extent City exercises the option(s) to extend the term of this 
Agreement, the Management Fee for the extension term(s) shall be increased 
in the same proportion as the increase in the CPI at such time as compared to 
the CPI on the commencement date of this Agreement. However, the 
increases provided for in this Section shall be limited to four percent (4%) 
per annum. 

(b) In the event City oxpands or contracts the Facilities to include or exclude 
any new or existing parking facilities, the Management Fee shall be adjusted 
to reflect: (i) the actual increases or decreases in the salaries of the Parking 
Staff necessary for such expanded or contracted Facilities, and the premiums 
for the insurance, bonds, and deposits required hereunder; and (ii) a pro rata 
adjustment (based on number of parking spaces) in the "overhead and profit" 
component of the Management Fee. In no event will the Management Fee 
be adjusted for the mere increase or decrease in the number of parking 
spaces in any Facility. 

The annual cost proposal for the first contract year and the management fee 
schedule arc shown in attachments 6 &. 7. 

The expenses incurred and budget for this contract for fiscal year 00/01 by the 
previous contractor arc shown in attachment 8. 

Please call me at 650.821.4056 if you should have any questions. 

cc: Steve Gordon, Adrienne Go, Cathy Widener 

13 



~°p^e I oT 3~ 



AtLxc%.meat2 
PUBLICATIONS 



Allan Week 

China Preaa 

Chlneaa Times 

El Latino 

El Reportero 

NewBayYtow 

Philippine New* 

San Francisco Bay Times 

Small Business Exchange 



...Ik 



Attad>m£&t3 
MEDIA LIST 



P^e 2 o± !3 



Bay Gty San Francisco 
Bay City News fWC 
K1CU 
KPIX 

KNTV 
KOFY 
KQ£D 
KGOAM 

Criannel 28 

KCSSAM 

KFRCAM 

Marin Independent 

Oakland Tribune 

FC Progress 

Deity Review 

San Jose Mercury New* 

Mlllbrae Sun 

San Bruno Herald 

KTVU 

San Mateo Times 

KGOTV 

Independent News Grcxip 

San Frandsco Ovoold* 

San Frand»co Examiner 

KRONTV 

Assodated Pre** 

KFOG 

Channel 14 

MenJo Park AJmanac 



San Francisco Independent 

BOUTVLGR 

USA Today 

KFOX 

AAA Pubfc Relatione 

Fox New* 

Channel ee 

Public Works 

Travel info 

Travel WeeWy 

Reuters News 

Lisa Paul 

AAAE 
Channeled 

WaQ SZreet Journal 
Muni Facts 
Moodye Investor 
NYBioomberg News 
NJ Btoornberg News 
SF Bkxxnfcerg News 
Aviation Dairy 
ACi AJrport Week 
Airport Report 
Travel Newt A«ia 
Ar Finance Journal 
Airports North America 
Mo tfo Traffic 
Contra Costa Times 
Philadelphia Airport 



15 



Pa?e 3 ot 3 



Pan Asia Venlure SPCVB Tokyo 

Sing Tao Daily SFCVB Shanghai 

Kyodo Newa Colum&ua Travel Guide 

India W*$t Aaro international 

Air Reporter Wortd journal 

AAMC Ruaaian New* 

San Francisco Vawtcr's American Journal 

Convention Center Channel 32 



16 



Attachment V 
Page 1 ot b 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 
via facsimile 
5 pages total 

TO: Anna LaForte DATE: 

FROM: Cathy Widener 

SUBJECT: Airport Employee Management Services - Pacific Park Management contract 

Per your request regarding the Airpor's speculation as to why we only received one bid for the 
employee-parking contract, I am providing you with a copy of the Minimum Qualifications for the 

contract by way of background. 

While seven companies came to the Airport's Informational Conference held on August 15, only 
one - Pacific Park Management - submitted a Qualification Package to the Airport. 

This may have occurred because the Minimum Qualifications (see attached) for the contract are 
difficult for most Small Business Enterprise companies to meet. While this is considered a Small 
Business Enterprise contact for the Airport because it is relatively small compared to other parking 
contracts, the number for spaces (over 6,000) demand that a "responsive" bidder meet the 
Minimum Qualifications. 

The Airport's Minority and Women Business Outreach Department reviewed the qualifications and 
determined that at least three out of the seven companies could have met the requirements, but for 
reasons unknown to the Airport two of the three choose not to submit bids. 



Attachment V 
Eagj 2. of 5 



SECTION I: OVERVIEW 

A. Minimum Qualification "Reqiurgments . All Qualifications Packages must include 
materials evidencing each Candidate's satisfaction of the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements. Airport staff will review the Qualifications Package of the Candidates to 
determine whether each is responsive, is responsible, and satisfies the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements. This is a "pass/fail" determination. The Airport 
Commission will not award the contract to any Candidate that does not satisfy the 
Minimum Qualification Requirements. 

Each Candidate must demonstrate that it satisfies the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements set forth below. 

• Ownership or Management . The Candidate must have at least live years of 
experience within the past five (5) years as an owner or operator of a public 
and/or employee parking facility (mnlri-leveL at-grade and/or surface lot). For at 
least two (2) of those years, the aggregate number of parking stalls for such 
facilrrrfjes) must have exceeded 1,500 parking stalls combined. 

• Small Business Enterprise ("SBE") . Candidate must qualify as a Small Business 
Enterprise, which is defined as: 

1 . Small business entity which is owned and controlled by one or more 
economically disadvantaged individuals, is independently owned and operated 
and organized for profit; and 

2. Small business entity may be an individual proprietorship, partnership, limited 
liability company, corporation, joint venture or association; and 

3. Small business entity must have annual gross receipts in the preceding three 
years not exceeding $5 million. 

• Computerized Parking Control System, Experience . Candidate must have at least 
two (2) yean of experience operating and maintaining parking security and access 
control systems based on card readers, loop-detectors and automatic gates, 

• Staff . Candidate must have experience managing a staff of at least ten (10) 
employees (including employees and employees of contractors) in its owned or 
operated parking faciliryri.es). 

• Financial Ability . Candidate must demonstrate that it has the financial capacity 
and experience to operate the Project. 

If Candidate is o Joint Venture, any joint venture panner\s) owning 50% or more must 
satisfy gj] of the foregoing qualification requirements. Any joint venture parmcr(H) 
owning less than 50% in the joint venture must have a minimum of three (3) years of 
general management experience, and provide evidence of managing-ownership or 

Rfcquen for QuaJificaiLons for the Airport £."nplo)rcc Parking Paciliii*: Optrjong Agiccrrxni Section t 

Pa S e6 

IW..-*,*** «.rTvw, 18 



Page 3 ot i 



senior/ general management of a viable, for-profit business concern during thai time. 
Both (all) Joint Venture partners must be Small Business Enterprises. 

B. Evaluation of QuaHflcadojas . All Candidates that satisfy the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements will be evaluated by a panel which is to determine the most qualified 
Candidate based on the following criteria; 

Ownership or Management Experience 50% 

Parking Control System Experience 20% 

Staff Management Experience 20% 

Financial Ability 10% 

G Negotiating ?f Management Fee . Identification of the most qualified Candidate will not 
imply that the Candidate will receive award of ihe contract. The Airport intends to 
negotiate the Management Fee with the top-ranked Candidate. In the event the Director 
determines that a Management Fee cannot be negotiated with the top-ranked Candidate or 
if the Director dacrmines the parries are at an impasse, the Director, m his sole 
discretion, may terminate negotiations, and direct staff to commence negotiations with 
the next highest ranked Candidale(s), and so on. The Airport intends to seek a 
Management Fee that represents value as well as economy, and it may not be the lowest 
possible management fee. Although the Airport reserves the right to negotiate any 
Management Fee it deems appropriate, it intends to negotiate within the following 
guidelines: 

(1) The Management Fes will comprise only. 

♦ Salaries of the General Manager and Administrative Assistant; 

• Premiums for all required insurance, bonds, and deposits, and 
« Operator's overhead and profit. 

(2) The overhead and profit components of the Management Fee shall not 
exceed three percent (3%) of the Annual Cost Proposal for any year; 

(3) The total Management Fee shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the 
Annual Coat Proposal for any Year; and 

(4) The Management Fee shall be adjusted each year by the CPI but in no 
event will the increases in any given year exceed four percent (4%). 

The standard Airport contract provisions shall not be subject to negotiations. 

D. Qualifications Submittal . In submitting its Qualifications Package, a Candidate agrees 
that (a) if its submission is accepted, Candidate will execute the Agreement on or before 
the deadline specified by the Airport Director, and (b) Candidate accepts all of the terms 
and conditions of this PFQ (including the Agreement). Any Qualifications Package 
received after the Qualifications Submittal Deadline will be returned to the Candidate. 

E. Bond . To secure the Candidate's obligation to execute the Agreement and submit the 
deposit and bonds required by the Agreement, each Candidate must submit in its 
Qualifi cations Package a bond or a letter of credit in the form attached as Attachment 2 
which bond or lertex of credit must be in the amount of 550,000 The Airport 

Rrqucst Cor QuaJUl«noa3 for thx Ajrpon Employee ParJung Fadliti« Opcranng Agreement Scciicn 1 

**~Tmi uim— n .i_ijai— ilii jhwithiwi— i — — - — i im »ni— am, 

19 



Pape 4 or. 5 



Commission reserves the right to cash the bond/letter of credit and hold, the proceeds 
thereof as security for the obligations described below. No submissions will be 
considered unless accompanied by the bond/letter of credit. The bond/letter of credit win 
be held to guarantee execution of the Agreement and the Candidate's delivery of the 
deposit required by the Agreement, and the bond/letter of credit or the caah proceeds 
thereof will be retained by the Airport Commission as liquidated damages in the event the 
successful Candidate fails to do so. 

F. Presto tations/Interviews . The Airport Commission reserves the right to conduct 
interviews and/or presentations. In such event, the scores from the written Qualifications 
Package will be weighted 80% and the scores of the interviews/presentations will be 
weighted 20%. 

G. MAV/LBE Participatioa Goals aqd Joint Ventura . As used below, the term "MBE", 
"WBE", and "LBE" shall mean Minority Business Enterprise, Woman Business 
Enterprise, and Local Business Enterprise, respectively, as defined by the City and 
County of San Francisco Chapter 12DA., MBE/WBE/LBE Utilization Ordinance. 
Consistent with San Francisco Adrninisrrarivc Code Section 12.DA., the Airport 
Commission's policy is to ensure that M/W/LBEs have equal opportunities to participate 
in all phases of Airport contracting. 

(1) Joint-Ventures . The Candidate mayjoint-venrure with a local certified MBE or 
WBE for a minimum of 35%. The joint-venture partner must meet the 
requirements as specified in San Francisco A clrnini strati ve Code Chapter 12.D.A, 
(refer to Attachment 3). 

(2) Subconsuiting Goals . The Candidate must achieve the MAVBE subconsuiting 
goals or demonstrate "good-faith efforts" to achieve such goals in the Project. For 
this Project, the subconsuiting goals arc fifteen percent (35%) for MBEs, and 
three percent (3%) for WBEs, based on the Annual Cost Proposal, minus the 
Management Fee A Candidate may request that the HRC Director waive or 
reduce the subconsuiting goals by submitting the reasons for the request in writing 
to Project Manager with its Qualifications Package. The factors that the HRC 
Lhrector will consider in evaluating such a request are set forth in San Francisco 
Administrative Code Section 12. DA. 17(G). Denial of the request may be 
appealed to the HRC. The MAVBEs must be certified by the F£RC prior to the 
Qualifications Submittal Deadline to be counted toward satisfying these 
subconsulring goals. In its Qualifications Package, the qualified Candidate must 
submit to HRC for review and approval all required HRC Forms and data 
demonstrating the proposed plan to achieve the MAVBE subconsuiting goals, or 
good faith efforts to achieve such goals, for the Project As described above, 
Candidates are Instructed to ase the 2001/02 Annual Cost Proposal as the basis 
for demonstrating that they will meet the M/WBE subconsuiting goals or 
demonstrating "good faith efforts, " 

(3) Rating Bonus . Candidates who arc M/W/LBEs may be eligible for a certain 
rating bonus. If applying for a rating bonus as a joint venture, the M/W/LBE 

Reaucti for QualincarioTu for th* Airport S-Tiploy^c parking faciliuei Ojxritlng Atre^mcru Sccnon 1 

?»ge8 



Attachment: v 
Page b of b 



musi be an active partner in the joint venture and perform work, manage the job 
and take financial risks in proportion to the required level of parriciparjon stated 
in the bid, and must be responsible for a clearly defined portion of the work to be 
performed and share in the ownership, control, management responsibilities, 
risk3, and profits of the joint venture. The portion of the M/W/LBE joinc 
venture's work shall be set forth in detail separately from the work to be 
performed by the non-MAV/LBE joint venture partner. The M/W/LBE joint 
venture's portion of the contract must be assigned a commercially reasonable 
dollar value. See Attachment 3 for more information. 

(4) More Information . If you have any questions about the M/W/LBE program, or if 
you desire MAWLBE cerrificarian applications, please contact Romulus Asenloo, 
HRC Contract Compliance Officer at the Airport, at (650) 794-5578, fax no: 
(650) 737-7720. If you need a list of certified locad MAVBEs, you can access the 
names from the HRC website at: www.ci.sf.ca.us/sfhumanrights. or you may call 
the Airport M/WBE Opportunity Office at (650) 821-5021. 



Rcquca lew Qualification! Cor the Airpon Employer Porting Facilities Opcuang Agrttmcni Staion 1 

Page 9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 01-1884 



Department: 
Item: 



Airport 

Resolution approving an Airport parking facilities 
operating agreement (contract) between Ampco System 
Parking and the City and County of San Francisco, acting 
by and through its Airport Commission. 



Purpose of Operating 
Agreement: 



Description: 



To provide for the operation and maintenance, including 
security guard and janitorial services, of the following 
three public parking garages, one public parking lot and 
one Impound Lot: 

(1) the Domestic Terminal Parking Garage with 5,100 
short-term public parking spaces, 140 valet-parking 
spaces, five limousine spaces, 1,100 Airport, airline 
and concession employee parking spaces not covered 
under File 01-1883 and 300 taxi parking spaces; 

(2) the International Terminal Parking Garage A with 
1,600 public parking spaces and 40 taxi parking 
spaces; 

(3) the International Terminal Parking Garage G with 
1,500 public parking spaces and 150 Airport, airline 
and concession employee parking spaces not covered 
under File 01- 1883; 

(4) the Long-Term Parking Lot (Lot D) with 5,300 public 
parking spaces; and 

(5) the Airport Impound Lot 1 . 

The proposed operating agreement would cover a total of 
13,500 public parking spaces, 140 valet-parking spaces, 
five limousine parking spaces, 340 taxi parking spaces 
and 1,250 Airport, airline and concession employee 
parking spaces. 

The proposed resolution would award a parking operating 
agreement, including security guard and janitorial 
services, for the Domestic Terminal Parking Garage, the 
International Terminal Parking Garage A, the 
International Terminal Parking Garage G, the Long-Term 



1 Under the proposed operating agreement, Ampco would manage the Airport Impound Lot. The 
Airport Impound Lot has 100 parking spaces for abandoned cars which are towed by Ampco and kept 
in this locked parking lot. There are no public parking spaces in the Airport Impound Lot. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Parking Lot (Lot D) and the Airport Impound Lot to 
Ampco System Parking (Ampco). 

Amount Payable by 

Airport to Ampco: Not to exceed $19,338,354 during the first year of the 

proposed operating agreement from January 3, 2002 
through January 2, 2003. Attachment I, provided by the 
Airport, provides budget details for the estimated cost of 
$19,338,354 for the proposed operating agreement. 
Attachment II, provided by the Airport, provides budget 
details for the estimated management fee in the amount 
of $1,489,079 or 7.7 percent of the total estimated 
operating agreement costs of $19,338,354. 

In her October 24, 2001 memorandum to the Budget 
Analyst (Attachment III) Ms. Teresa Rivor of the Airport 
explains that the Airport is unable at this time to 
estimate the cost of the proposed operating agreement 
beyond the first year (the operator's agreement includes 
4-one year options to extend the agreement) "due to the 
current climate caused by the events of September 11, 
2001." 

According to the terms of the proposed operating 
agreement, the Airport Commission would be required to 
approve the Annual Cost Proposal prepared and 
submitted by Ampco to the Airport during the term of this 
agreement. This Annual Cost Proposal would include the 
management fee and estimated direct costs of operating 
the Airports' subject parking facilities. According to Ms. 
Rivor, the Annual Cost Proposal, and thus the contractual 
services costs for future years, could vary depending on 
the level of services required by the Airport. However, 
according to the terms of the proposed operating 
agreement, Ampco cannot incur any expenses for such 
parking operations unless and until the Airport 
Commission approves such expenses, which would occur 
on an annual basis (see Comment No. 5). 

In accordance with Section 6.3 of the proposed operating 
agreement, the management fee, which is estimated at 
$1,489,079 for the first year of the proposed operating 
agreement, would increase by the percentage increase in 
the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Term of Operating 
Agreement: 



Comments: 



Metropolitan Area provided that the management fee 
cannot increase by more than four percent per year. 



January 3, 2002 through January 2, 2003 (one year). The 
term of the proposed operating agreement could be 
extended annually for up to four additional years on 
approval by the Airport Commission. Upon the expiration 
of the fourth one-year extension, the operating agreement 
may be further extended on a month-to-month basis. 
According to Section 3.2 of the proposed operating 
agreement, "Upon expiration of this Agreement, with the 
consent of the operator [Ampco], Director [of the Airport] 
may direct Operator to continue performance of the 
Services on a month-to-month basis, on the same terms 
and conditions of this Agreement, until such time as City 
has engaged another Operator. " 

The Budget Analyst notes that in accordance with the 
terms of the proposed operating agreement, the 
agreement could be extended indefinitely on a month-to- 
month basis without obtaining approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends 
that the proposed operating agreement be amended to 
require Board of Supervisors approval to extend the 
agreement on a month-to-month basis for any period 
beyond 12 months subsequent to the expiration of the 
fourth one-year extension. 

1. On June 5, 2001, the Airport Commission issued a 
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the subject 
management of the parking facilities operating agreement 
including the related security guard and janitorial 
services at the Airport. The Airport received Qualification 
Packages from five proposers, Five Star Parking, APCOA- 
Pacific Parking, Central Parking System, PRG Parking 
Management, LLC, and Ampco. Ms. Rivor states in 
Attachment III that Airport staff reviewed the five 
Qualification Packages and determined that PRG Parking 
Management, LLC, did not satisfy the minimum 
qualifications set forth in the RFQ and, thus, was not 
qualified to submit a proposal to the Airport. Ms. Rivor 
further states in Attachment III that, of the four firms 
which submitted proposals, Central Parking System 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

Ik 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



submitted their proposal after the Proposal Submittal 
Deadline, and, thus, was disqualified from the evaluation 
process. As shown in Attachment III, the evaluation 
criteria included the firm's experience and qualifications, 
the proposed Senior Managers' experience, the quality of 
business, marketing and transition plans, financial ability 
to perform and the proposed management fee. 

2. The RFQ evaluation was based on a total of 500 
points, and the management fee was 150 points or 30 
percent of the total. Ms. Rivor reports that Five Star 
Parking submitted a proposed management fee bid of 
$964,866, the low bid, and APCOA-Pacific Parking 
submitted a proposed management fee of $1,922,000. 
Ampco's management fee bid of $1,489,079 was $524,213 
or 54.3 percent more than Five Star Parking's low 
management fee bid of $964,866. 

Overall, Five Star Parking received a rating of 421.55 
points, APCOA-Pacific Parking received a rating of 416.22 
points and Ampco received the highest rating of 437.46 
points. 

Because Ampco did not submit the lowest management 
fee bid, which exceeded the lowest management fee bid by 
$524,213 or 54.3 percent more than the Five Star Parking 
cost bid, the Budget Analyst considers approval of the 
proposed resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. Attachment IV, provided by the Airport, lists the 
newspapers and media agencies where the Airport 
advertised this RFQ. 

4. On July 23, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution approving the Controller's certification that 
public parking management services at the Airport could 
continue to be practically performed by a private 
contractor at a lower cost for the year commencing July 1 
2001 than if the work were performed by City employees 
(File 01-1188). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



5. The Controller's annual certification of costs is subject 
to Board of Supervisors approval for each of the up to four 
additional one-year extensions. 

6. In addition to the parking spaces at the Domestic 
Terminal Parking Garage, that Garage also includes 
4,000 square feet of office space for use by Ampco. The 
International Terminal Parking Garages A and G contain 
approximately 1,000 square feet each of office space for 
Ampco's use for satellite offices. 

7. Ms. Rivor reports that Ampco has provided parking 
management services to the Airport since 1991. The 
existing contract with the Airport to provide parking 
management services was a one-year contract that began 
on July 1, 1996 with four one-year extensions. The fourth 
one-year extension of this contract expired on June 30, 
2001. Ms. Rivor reports that Ampco has provided public 
parking management services since June 30, 2001 on a 
month-to-month basis, under the terms of the existing 
contract. 

8. According to Ms. Rivor, in calendar year (CY) 2000, 
the Airport generated $69,051,506 in revenues from the 
operation of the Airport's subject parking facilities. 
During the first three-quarters of CY 2001, or January 1, 
2001 through September 30, 2001, the Airport generated 
$47,905,175 in revenues from the operation of the 
Airport's subject parking facilities. Ms. Rivor reports that 
the Airport issues parking permits to airline and 
concession employees through their employers. Airport 
employees and employees of the parking facility operator 
do not pay to park in the Airports' subject parking 
facilities. 

9. Ms. Rivor reports that, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000-2001, 
the Airport paid $13,910,928 to Ampco, the present 
parking operator, including a management fee of 
$646,691 or 4.6 percent of total operating agreement 
costs. The proposed estimated management fee of 
$1,489,079 is $842,388 or 130.3 percent more than the 
previous management fee. The previous management fee 
was based on 4.6 percent of the total operating agreement 
costs as compared to the proposed management fee which 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

is based on 7.7 percent of the total estimated operating 
agreement costs. The total estimated payment to Ampco 
under this new operating agreement of $19,338,354 is 
$5,427,426 or 39 percent more than the payment to 
Ampco in FY 2000-2001. According to Ms. Rivor, the 
payment for FY 2000-2001 for parking management 
services under the existing contract with Ampco includes 
one full year of operation of the Domestic Terminal 
Parking Garage, the Long-Term Parking Lot (Lot D) and 
the Airport Impound Lot, but only six months of operation 
of the International Terminal Parking Garages A and G, 
which began operating in December of 2000. The proposed 
operating agreement includes the cost of one full year of 
operating the International Terminal Parking Garages A 
and G. 

10. Ms. Rivor advises that Ampco would subcontract to 
the following four firms: (a) Cal State Patrol for security 
services at an estimated cost of $2,605,994, (b) DAJA Inc. 
for the operation of the Long-Term Parking Lot (Lot D) 
and the operation of the valet service in the Domestic 
Terminal Parking Garage at an estimated cost of 
$1,213,751 for the first year of the proposed operating 
agreement, (c) Org Metrics for employee training for 
operators at an estimated cost of $17,850 for the first year 
of the proposed operating agreement and Mah and 
Associates for accounting services at an estimated cost of 
$17,850 for the first year of the proposed operating 
agreement. The subcontract cost of $3,855,445 is included 
in the operating agreement budget of $19,338,354. 

11. Item 1, File 01-1183, also being considered by the 
Finance Committee at its November 7, 2001 Finance 
meeting, pertains to the Airport's proposed contract 
award to Pacific Park Management to provide Airport, 
airline, and concession employee parking management 
services at the Airport. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with the Term of Operating Agreement 

Section of this report, continue this proposed resolution to 
the Call of the Chair pending action by the Airport 
Commission to amend the subject operating agreement by 
adding a provision which requires Board of Supervisors 
approval prior to the Airport Commission and Ampco 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



agreeing to extend the operating agreement on a month- 
to-month basis for any period beyond 12 months 
subsequent to the expiration of the fourth one-year 
extension. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors, as noted in Comment No. 2. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
28 



Attacnment l 



Attachment 5 
2001/02 PROPOSED AUTOMOBILE PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES BUDGET 



A '■ i 



Budget Line Item 


TOTAL 



Cashiers 

Computer Technicians 
Customer Service Manager 
Customer Service Attendants 
Garago Supervisors 
Inventory Lot Checkers 
Office 3taff 
Stationary Engineers 
Valet Attendants 
Total Payroll 

Payroll Tax 
Employee Benefits 

Total Payroll Overhead 

Total Personnel Costs 

Advertising 

Bank Charges 

Computer Maintenance 

Contract Services 

Facilities Modifications & Equipment 

Janitorial Services 

Laundry and Uniforms 

Legal Services 

Lion Fees 

Management Fee 

Office Expenditures 

Operating Expenses 

Payroll &. AP Processing Charges 

Refunds & Fee Adjustments 

Revenue Control Tickets and Forms 

Security and Traffic Control 

Telephone/Communication Expenditures 

Training and Seminars 

Total Cthar Expenses 

Grand Total 



$4,029,945 

3188,030 

$43,070 

$177,910 

S1 ,313.492 
$426,420 
S775.21S 
$231,067 
$322,230 



S7.513.440 

$641,486 
S1 .798,870 



52.440355 



S9.953.796 



$12,000 

$1 ,089,200 

$100,000 

$55,300 

S225.000 

S2.670.Q02 

$87,000 

$10,500 

S32.655 

$1. 489.079 

S55.800 

$403,133 

$10,000 

$33,000 

$232,558 

S2.785.481 

$38,600 

S50.250 



S9.384.558 



S19.338.3S4 



ACP.xls 



Public Parking 



ZOO/cOfc 22fr0# 



29 



>S0> i€L = ? 0e = 6C 1002, K'iOO 



Attachment 11 



Appendix B-l 
Management Fee Schedule 

Proposed Annual 
Fee Components Pee Components 

General Manager: 
Assistant General Manager: 
Office Manager: 
Operations Manager(s): 
Accounting Manager: 
Facilities Manager 

Compensation Subtotal: 

Premiums : 
Required insurance: 

Workers' Compensation S 525,619 

Commercial General Liability S 69,653 

Business Automobile Liability $ 23,217 

Garage Keeper's Legal Liability S 4,000 

Burglary and Robbery S 1,500 

Required deposit and fidelity bonds 

Premiums Subtotal 

Overhead and profit : 

Total Proposed Annual Management Fee : 



s 


77,636 


S 57,098 


S 


45,000 


S 


99,929 


S 


52,370 


S 


52,715 


s 


384,748 


s 


623,989 



$ 


56,342 


S 


680,331 


S 


424,000 


s 


1,489,079 



Appendix B-l Page 1 

Operating Agreement for the Management of the Public Parking Facilities 



Attachment I II 
Pap.e 1 of 5i 



SFO 



San Francisco International Airport 



VIA FACSIMILE TO 415-252-0461 



P.O. 8ox 3097 

Sjn Francisco. CA 9*128 

Tel 6S0.821.SOOO 

F:\x650.821.5005 

www.flysfo.com 



commission 
city amo county 
0« san srahc1scg 

.ILUC L.0ROWN. Jfl 



DATE: October 24, 2001 

TO: Ms. Anna LaForte 

Board of Supervisors, Finance Committee 

FROM: Teresa Rivor /4^7\ §MM-^ 

Airport Concession Development and Management 

RE: Airport Public Parking Facilities Operating Agreement 



Per your request, I am providing to you the chronological events for this Airport Public 
henry e. 8EJMAN Parking Facilities Request for Qualification/ Proposal. 



LARRY MAZZOLA 



CM»Et. S. JTAUNSKY 
UNOA S CRAYTON 



JOHN L. MARTIN 

AiO'onT oinccroa 



- Request For Qualification/Proposal Issued October I, 2000 

• Informational Conference advertised See Attachment 2 
Press release sent See Attachment 3 

•. Informational Conference Date October 25, 2000 

• Commission Approval Final Issuance of RFP February 6, 2001 

• Final Request for Proposal Issued March 1,2001 

• Request for Proposal advertised See Attachment 2 
Press release sent See Attachment 3 

In accordance with the Final Request for Proposal, the selection process was a two-stage 
process: 

" Qualification Stage : On or before die Qualification Package Deadline, all interested 
Proposers must submit Qualification Packages, evidencing their satisfaction of the 
minimum qualification requirements specified (Attachment 1). Airport staff will 
review the submission to determine whether the Proposer satisfies the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements. This is a "pass/fail" determination, and no scoring is done 
at this stage. As to those Proposers who satisfy such Minimum Qualification 
Requirements, Airport staff will recommend that the Airport Commission "short list" 
such Proposers and invite them to submit Proposal Packages. 



Attachment II" 



~ 



ap-e 



Ms. Anna LaFonc 
Ocr»bcr24, 2001 
Page 2 



Proposal Stage : The Airport will notify those Proposers who are "short-listed" and 
invite them to submit Proposal Packages. A panel will review the Proposal Packages 
in accordance with the evaluation criteria to determine the most responsible and 
responsive Proposer. A five-member panel consisting of industry experts from other 
Airports, other parking business, and Airport Staff was selected to participate in the 
selection process. The panel members were: 

o Lester Patilla. Port of Oakland 

o Eugene Choy, Airport Commission 

o Robert Weinberg. Marketplace Development 

o Kathy Hausler. San Jose International Airport 

o Stephen Gordon, Airport Commission 

Evaluation Criteria : The evaluation criteria used to rank all qualified proposers are as 
follows: 

o Finn's Experience and Qualifications 20 points 

o Proposed Senior Managers' Experience 20 points 

o Quality of Business, Marketing and Transition Plans 15 points 

o Financial Ability to Perform 15 points 

o Management Fee 30 points 

Total 100 points 

The points were weighed 70% based on the written Proposal, 30% based on the 
Presentation/Interview. Only the top four proposers, based on written Proposals, were 
invited to participate in the Presentation/Interview of the process. 



HRC and Airport staff participated in the entire process up to and including observin cr the 
oral presentations as we]] as reviewing all the final score tabulations. 



Chronology of Final Phase of the Selection Process 

April 30. 2001 

The Airport received Qualification Packages from five proposers: 

• Five Star Parking 

• APCOA-PactfK Parking - A Joint Venture of APCOA and Pacific Park 
Management Inc. 

• Central Parking System 

• PRG Parking Management LLC 

• AMPCO System Parking 

After staff reviewed all the submittals, staff determined that four of the Proposers satisfy 
the Minimum Qualification Requirements set forth in the RFQ/P. PRG Parking 
Management, LLC did not satisfy the Minimum Qualifications. 



\0 



Attachment III 
.fa^e 3 5T 5 



Ms. Ann LiFortc 
October 2<l, 2001 
Page 3 



June 1 . 2001 

Airport Commission approved the "short-list" and invited the qualified proposers to submit 

proposals. These proposers were: 

• Five Star Parking 

• APCOA-Pacific Park Parking - A Joint Venture of APCOA and Pacific Park 
Management, Inc. 

• Central Parking System 

• Ampco Sy:tem Parking 

July 2, 2001 

The Airport received four Proposals from the previously approved "short-list". However. 
Central Parking System submitted its proposal after the Proposal Submittal Deadline. 
Therefore their Proposal was returned un-opened. 

Julv 5 .2001 

A five-member panel consisting of subject matter experts in the parking industry 

completed the review and rating. 

July 18. 2001 

To conclude the final step in the RPQ/P process, the proposers were invited to an oral 

presentation before the five-member panel. 

The final tabulation of the scores and the ranking is as follows: 

• Ampco Parking System 437.46 

• Five Star Parking 421.55 

• APCOA-Pacific Parking 416.22 

August 2. 2001 

HRC completed its review and all three firms, directly or through good faith efforts, 
achieved the minority-owned business enterprise (MBE) and woman-owned business 
enterprise (WBE) sub-consulting goals for the contract. Further, APCOA -Pacific 
Parking - A Joint Venture of APCOA and Pacific Park Management, Jnc. requested a 5% 
rating bonus; however, the HRC determined that it does not qualify for such bonus. 

Based on the qualification and scores, Ampco was deemed the best responsive and 
responsible proposer. 

October 2. 2001 

Ampco Parking System was awarded the Airport Public Parking Facilities Operating 
Agreement for one year with four one-year options to extend the term (see "Resolution No. 
01-0303" previously sent to the Board). 



E I -"' 1-?C1Q1 



Attachment III 
Pao-e 4 or" 5 



Ms. Anna Laf one 
Oao'ov 2<»,200l 
?iic4 



Annual Cost Proposal 

Your request for the projections of the Annual Cost Proposals for the four one-year options 
are not available at this time due to the current climate caused by the events of 
September 11, 2001. Please be assured that we will return to the Board of Supervisors 
each year to obtain Proposition J approvals. 

In drafting the final Operating Agreement, staff and the City Attorney's Office ensured that 
a number of controls were in place, such as: 

In accordance with Section 6.3 Management Fee Adjustment of the Operating Agreement: 

(a) If and to the extent City exercises the options(s) to extend the term of this Agreement, 
the Management Fee for the extension term(s) shall be increased in the same 
proportion as the increase in the CPO at such time as compared to the CPI on the 
commencement date of this Agreement. However, the increases provided for in this 
Section shall be limited to four percent (4%) per annum. 

(b) In the event City expands or contracts the Facilities to include or exclude any new or 
existing parking facilities, the Management Fee shall be adjusted to reflect: (i) the 
actual increases or decreases in the salaries of the Parking Senior Staff necessary for 
such expanded or contracted Facilities, and the premiums for the insurance, bonds, 
and deposits required hereunder; and (ii) a pro rata adjustment (based on number of 
parking spaces) in the 'overhead and profit" component of the Management Fee. In 
no event will the Management be adjusted for the mere increase or decrease in the 
number of parking spaces in any Facilities. 

Section 6.2 Compensation Structure, of the Operating Agreement, 

Compensation payable by City to Operator hereunder comprises the Management Fee 
and the Actual Direct Costs. On or before November of each year, Operator shall 
submit to City for City's approval the Annual Cost Proposal for the upcoming year, in 
form satisfactory to Director. The Annual Cost Proposal shall set forth the 
Management Fee and estimated Actual Direct Costs. Operator shall incur no 
expenses under this Agreement unless and until the Annual Cost Proposal has been 
approved, in writing, by Director. Compensation payable to Operator shall be limited 
each year by the amounts set forth in the approved Annual Cost prosopsal. CHy shall 
have no obligation to pay any invoice which indicates that an expense item exceeds, 
or is projected to exceed, the amount therefore specified in the Airport-approved 
Annual Cost Proposal. The approved Annual Cost Proposal for initial one (1) year 
term of this Agreement is set forth in Appendix B-2. "Annual Cost Proposal" , is also 
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. In the 
event that the City exercises the options to extend the term of the Agreement, for each 
such extension period, Operator shall be required to submit a Annual Cost Proposal in 
a form that is satisfactory to Director. 

Section 1.17 Management Fee : 

The "Overhead and Profit" components of the management Fee shall not exceed three 
percent (3%) of the Annual Cost Proposal for any year of this Agreement. If and to 



Attachment 111 
Pap-e b ot b 



Ms. Anni LaFone 
October 24. 2001 
Page 5 



the extent the aggregate salaries of the Parking Senior Staff are less than, the amounts 
described on Appendix B, then the Management Fee shall be reduced accordingly. 

I hope this satisfies your requirements to proceed before the Board of Supervisors. If you 
require additional information, please call me at (650) 821-4500. 



XXDM\TEN,\NTS\MtSOMEMOS\BoS Public Ploi2.doc 



35 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 3 



Attachment 2 
PUBLICATIONS 



Asian Week 

China Press 

Chinese Times 

El Latino 

El Reportero 

New Bayview 

Philippine News 

San Francisco Bay Times 

Small Business Exchange 



36 



Attachment: IV 
Page 2 of 3 



Attachment 3 
MEDIA LIST 



Bay City San Francisco 

Bay City News RWC 

K1CU 

KPIX 

KNTV 

KOFY 

KQED 

KGO AM 

Channel 26 

KCBSAM 

KFRC AM 

Marin Independent 

Oakland Tribune 

FC Progress 

Daily Review 

San Jose Mercury News 

Millbrae Sun 

San Bruno Herald 

KTVU 

San Mateo Times 

KGO TV 

Independent News Group 

San Francisco Chronicle 

San Francisco Examiner 

KRONTV 

Associated Press 

KFOG 

Channel 14 

Menlo Park Almanac 



San. Francisco Independent 

BOUTVLGR 

USA Today 

KFOX 

AAA Public Relations 

Fox News 

Channel 66 

Public Works 

Travel Info 

Travel Weekly 

Reuters News 

Lisa Paul 

AAAE 

Channel 48 

Wall Street Journal 

Muni Fads 

Moody's Investor 

NY Bloomberg News 

NJ Bloomberg News 

SF Bloomberg News 

Aviation Daily 

ACI Airport Week 

Airport Report 

Travel News Asia 

Air Finance Journal 

Airports North America 

Metro Traffic 

Contra Costa Times 

Philadelphia Airport 



37 



Attachment IV 
Page 3 of 3 



Attachmenc 3 
Page 2 



Pan Asia Venture SFCVB Tokyo 

Sing Tao Daily SFCVB Shanghai 

Kyodo News Columbus Travel Guide 

India West Aer o international 

Air Reporter w ° r ld journal 

AAMC Russian News 

San Francisco Visitor's American Journal 

Convention Center Channel 32 



38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 5 through 9 - Files 01-1800. 01-1836. 01-1838. 01-1839 and 01-1848 

Items: File 01-1800 : Resolution setting priorities and amending 

processes of the Board of Supervisors in reviewing the 
annual budget of City Departments submitted by the 
Mayor. 

File 01-1836 : Motion changing Rules of the Board of 
Supervisors to provide for review and comment by the 
public upon the Mayor's proposed annual budget prior to 
action by the Board of Supervisors on items within the 
budget. 

File 01-1838 : Motion establishing process for review of 
City Department budgets by various Committees of the 
Board of Supervisors. 

File 01-1839 : Motion setting priority on budget policy 
analysis for the Office of the Legislative Analyst. 

File 01-1848 : Ordinance amending Administrative Code 
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 to require the Mayor to submit the 
proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors by April 30, 
2002 for the FY 2002-2003 budget, and by February 28 of 
each year for subsequent budgets and revising deadlines 
for City departments to submit budgets to the Controller, 
and for the Controller to submit the consolidated budget 
to the Mayor, in order to reflect the new deadlines for 
submission to the Board of Supervisors. 

Description: File 01-1800 : The proposed resolution states the 

following: 

• That the Board of Supervisors supports increasing the 
amount of time between the date the Mayor submits 
the proposed annual budget to the Board of 
Supervisors and the date that the Board must pass an 
annual appropriation ordinance and annual salary 
ordinance, in order to ensure that the Board of 
Supervisors and the public have sufficient time to 
review and discuss the budget and its underlying 
policy; 

• That each City Department shall immediately and 
with all deliberate speed make efforts to fully comply 
with the requirements of Section 9.114 of the Charter 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



of the City and County of San Francisco which 
mandates the establishment of a mission-driven 
budget process, service outcomes desired by clients of 
the departments, and performance and productivity 
measures that gauge the success of departments in 
meeting their stated missions, so that such 
information is presented to the Board of Supervisors 
as a regular part of the budget presentations of the 
departments; 

That the Board of Supervisors shall provide for a full 
and meaningful review of the policy considerations 
underlying the annual budgets of each department on 
a cyclical basis, including a review of the mission of 
each department, the performance measures used to 
gauge efficiency and effectiveness in completing such 
mission, the processes used by the department to 
analyze efficiency and effectiveness, and the processes 
used to arrive at the proposed budget submitted to the 
Board of Supervisors, with such hearings divided 
among the appropriate subject area committees of the 
Board; 

That the Board of Supervisors shall provide for a full 
and meaningful opportunity for public review and 
comment upon the Mayor's annual proposed budget 
before moving the official action by the Board of 
Supervisors or its committees; 

That the Board of Supervisors shall make 
appropriations at a level of specificity that provides for 
a greater level of accountability by City Departments 
to the policy directives of the Board; 

That the Board of Supervisors shall amend the process 
for performance audits so that each and every City 
department is subjected to a regular performance 
audit at least once every 5 years; 

That the Board of Supervisors shall give adequate 
funding and direction to the Budget Analyst so that 
his annual review provides full and meaningful 
analysis of the assumptions underlying the proposed 
budgets of departments, as annually submitted by the 
Mayor, including information derived from the 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

performance reviews required of each department and 
program; 

• That the Board of Supervisors declares that the first 
priority of the Office of Legislative Analyst shall be to 
provide analysis of the policies underlying the 
allocations in the Mayor's proposed annual budget; 

• That the Board of Supervisors directs the Office of 
Legislative Analyst and the Budget Analyst to work 
together so that the analysis and information of each 
office is shared with that of the other to increase the 
efficiency and effectiveness of each of their efforts. 

Budget Analyst 1. The proposed resolution described above does not, in 

Comments on File and of itself have a fiscal impact. Costs could increase 

01-1800 however to the extent that the provisions of the 

proposed ordinance are implemented through increased 
appropriations. For example, if the Board of Supervisors 
devotes additional time to the review of the proposed 
annual budget, as stated in the proposed resolution, the 
cost of increased Budget Analyst services would depend 
on the extent to which the Budget Analyst is required to 
provide additional services in connection with the 
increased time for budget review. Such potential costs 
are discussed below under Budget Analyst Comments 
on File 01-1848. 

2. The current Rules of the Board of Supervisors call for 
performance audits of all City Departments every eight 
years by the Budget Analyst and the Controller. Rule 
6.17 of the Rules of Order of the Board of Supervisors 
states that it is the policy of the Board of Supervisors 
that each program of the City and County and the 
Redevelopment Agency be the subject of a performance 
or management audit at least once every eight years. 
Rule 6.17 further states that it shall be the function of 
these audits to ensure that City departments and the 
Redevelopment Agency make prudent and efficient use 
of City resources and that the departments and 
Redevelopment Agency effectively perform the functions 
assigned to them by the Charter and applicable laws. 
However, the combined resources of the Budget Analyst 
and the Controller are currently insufficient to perform 
such audits every eight years. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. The cost of increasing the staff of the Controller's 
Office and the Budget Analyst's Office to conduct 
additional performance audits would depend on the 
amount of appropriations approved by the Board of 
Supervisors and the Mayor. The Budget Analyst notes 
that, currently, the Controller's FY 2001-2002 budget 
includes expenditures of $456,539 for performance 
auditing. The Budget Analyst currently devotes 
approximately 20 percent of it professional staff hours 
to performance audits and special projects at a cost of 
approximately $395,000 annually. Therefore, the City 
expends a total of approximately $851,359 annually for 
performance audits by the Controller and the Budget 
Analyst. In addition, the Board of Supervisors has 
appropriated $200,000 for increased Budget Analyst 
services during FY 2001-2002 to conduct a performance 
audit of the Department of City Planning. 

4. The Budget Analyst estimates that the cost of a 
performance audit of a City department ranges from 
$30,000 to $600,000 per department depending on the 
size of the department, the complexity of department 
operations and the comprehensiveness of the 
performance audit. 



File 01-1836 : 

The proposed motion would amend the Rules of the Board 
to state that the Board of Supervisors shall provide for a 
full and meaningful opportunity for review and comment 
by the public upon the Mayor's annual proposed budget 
before moving to official action by the Board of 
Supervisors or its Committees as to items in that 
proposed budget. 



Budget Analyst The proposed motion would increase opportunities for 

Comments on File public testimony on the City's proposed budget but 

01-1836 would not appear to have significant fiscal impact. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

File 01-1838 : 

The proposed motion states that the Board of Supervisors 
shall provide for a full and meaningful review of the policy 
considerations underlying the annual budgets of each 
department on a cyclical basis, including a review of the 
mission of each department, the performance measures 
used to gauge efficiency and effectiveness, and the 
processes used to arrive at the proposed budget submitted 
to the Board of Supervisors, with Board of Supervisors 
hearings divided among the appropriate Committees of 
the Board. The proposed motion further states that a 
comprehensive, policy-driven review of the budgets of City 
departments shall be "informed by analysis by the Budget 
Analyst and the Office of the Legislative Analyst and also 
shall be informed by regular audits of the departments 
performed by the Budget Analyst and /or the Controller. " 

Budget Analyst The proposed motion would not, in an of itself, increase 

Comments on File the costs of the Board of Supervisors annual budget 

01-1838 review. Additional budget and policy analysis for an 

annual budget review could be accomplished through a 
redeployment of Budget Analyst and Board of 
Supervisors Legislative Analyst priorities at no 
additional costs. However, if funding of additional 
resources is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the 
cost of the Board of Supervisors annual budget review 
would increase. 



File 01-1839 : 

The proposed motion declares the following: 

• That the first priority of the Office of the Legislative 
Analyst shall be to provide analysis of the policies 
underlying the allocations in the Mayor's proposed 
annual budget; 

• That the Board of Supervisors shall establish a 
priority list of those budget policy analyses to be 
performed by the Office of the Legislative Analyst, 
with other policy analysis requests unrelated to to 
budget matters relegated to a second tier of priority 
below matters unrelated to the budget; 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

A3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



That the Board of Supervisors directs the Office of the 
Legislative Analyst and the Budget Analyst to work 
together so that the analysis and information of each 
office is shared with that of the other to increase the 
efficiency and effectiveness of each of their efforts in 
providing information to support the Board of 
Supervisors in it annual review of the budget. 



Budget Analyst The proposed motion would designate budget policy 

Comments on File analyses to be the first priority of the Office of the 

01-1839 Legislative Analyst, but would not, in and of itself, 

result in increased expenditures. 



File 01-1848 : 

The proposed ordinance would amend Administrative 
Code Sections 3.3 and 3.4 as follows: 

• The date by which City departments must submit 
budget requests to the Controller for compilation 
would be changed from the 21 st day of February of 
each year to the 21 st day of January, 2002 for the FY 
2002-2003 budget, and not later than the 21 st of 
November of the preceding year for each subsequent 
budget (i.e., November 21, 2002 for FY 2003-2004); 

• The date by which the City Controller transmits a 
consolidated budget request to the Mayor would be 
changed from the first working day of March to the 
first working day of February for the FY 2002-2003 
budget, and the first working day of December of the 
preceding year for each subsequent year (i.e., 
December 1, 2002 for FY 2003-2004); 

• The date by which the Mayor would transmit the 
Mayor's Recommended Budget to the Board of 
Supervisors would be changed from the first working 
day of June to April 30, 2002 for the FY 2002-2003 
budget and not later than February 28 for each 
subsequent budget (i.e., February 28, 2002 for FY 
2003-2004). 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget Analyst 1. File 01-0968, a Charter Amendment amending 

Comments on File Section 9.100 (Budget Process Ordinances) to require 

01-1848 the Mayor, beginning in 2003 (for FY 2003-2004) to 

submit the proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors 
on or before April 15 of each year, was heard by the 
Rules Committee of the Board of Supervisors on 
November 1; 2001 and made a "Do Not Pass" 
recommendation. The proposed Charter Amendment 
will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors. 

The Controller's statement on the effect on the cost of 
government of the proposed Charter Amendment, was 
based on the Mayor being required to submit the annual 
proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors on or before 
February 28 of each year. On October 23, 2001, the Rules 
Committee amended this Charter Amendment to change 
the date that the Mayor would be required to submit the 
annual proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors from 
on or before February 28 to on or before April 15. 
Assuming a date of no later than February 28, the 
Controller's Office had advised that the subject Charter 
Amendment is likely to result in a cost of approximately 
$1,100,000, including less than half such costs for Budget 
Analyst services, with the remaining costs for additional 
departmental analytical staff for the 16 larger City 
departments, one additional Controller position and one 
additional Clerk of the Board staff position. However, the 
Controller's Office advises that, depending on how the 
Board of Supervisors chooses to carry out the proposed 
expanded budget process, and on the decisions that result 
from this process, such that further budget reductions 
might result, the overall net cost to the City resulting 
from the proposed Charter Amendment could either 
increase or decrease. Ms. Peg Stevenson of the 
Controller's Office advises that the Controller's Office will 
revise the cost estimate or prepare new estimates of the 
costs of the proposed Charter Amendment, once the Board 
of Supervisors have approved final amendments to the 
subject legislation. 

2. Presently, under Charter Section 9.100 and 

Administrative Code Section 3.3, the Board of Supervisors 

has approximately one month to review the budget and to 

conduct budget hearings before the Finance Committee in 

Board of Supervisor s 

Budget Analyst 
45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



order that the Finance Committee's recommended budget 
and Annual Appropriation Ordinance is transmitted to 
the full Board for adoption prior to the absolute deadline 
of not later than August 1 of each year. By receiving the 
Mayor's proposed budget no later than April 30 of 2002 
and February 28 of 2003 and thereafter or April 15 of 
each year (as stated in the proposed Charter Amendment 
described above), the Board of Supervisors would have 
additional time to review the budget and conduct budget 
hearings. 

3. However, it should be noted that a proposed budget, 
submitted by the Mayor by either April 15, April 30 or 
February 28 of each year could be subject to substantial 
revision, by both the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, 
based upon new or updated information, prior to the 
Axigust 1 deadline for final approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. Budget information that is likely to change 
during this period could include revenue estimates, 
increased salary and benefits costs resulting from 
Memoranda of Understanding approved after the budget 
is submitted and changes to the costs of non-labor 
expenditures such as the recent volatility in utility prices 
and increased expenditures for non-profit contractors. 

4. The Budget Analyst believes that additional time 
expended on reviewing the budget should result in a more 
in-depth analysis of the budget. However, the Budget 
Analyst believes that the precise length of time to be 
devoted to the annual budget review is a policy decision 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approval of the proposed legislation is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 10 - File 01-1986 

Department: 

Item: 

Description: 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



Mayor's Office 

Hearing on the Mayor's plans to address the anticipated 
shortfall in FY 2001-2002 revenues. 

On October 10, 2001 the Controller presented a projected 
revenue shortfall estimated to be between $61.1 million 
and $99.6 million for FY 2001-2002. The details of this 
projection are shown in the Attachment to this report. 

According to Mr. Ben Rosenfield, Budget Director for the 
Mayor's Office, a report on the Mayor's recommended 
expenditure and revenue adjustments to offset the 
anticipated revenue shortfall for FY 2001-2002 is 
currently being prepared. As of the writing of this report, 
the Mayor's recommendations are not yet final. 

Mr. Rosenfield advises that the report of the Mayor's 
Office will be issued to the Board of Supervisors on 
November 5, 2001. 




Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

47 



Attachment 



o 


m 




u 


at 




C/l 












U 






/ 






i 

fa 


ST 


~ 


^ 


c 


c 


< 


■B 


:=: 


CO 












to 


fa 




u 






> 




— 


H 


U 


— 


^ 


u 




J 


(■J 


a 


O 




g 


u 




<• 


Q 


= 





.s? a 

6 



>■ 5 











r 





fa 


— 




n .j 










> 


~ 



vc on 

_; cn 

no rn 



_ 


>^ 






CO 


© 

© 


r^ 


N? 




r-- 



■V 


£ 


St 


e 


i~j 


o 


NO 


^S 


S9 


o 


f»> 


in 


M 


1? 


in 


o 


</. 


IT) 



rj 


S? 




q 
in 


ro 


^ 


in 

CO 


o 
in 


T 


N° 


rl 


o 



-i 


^ 


T 
IS 


q 
e 


o 


jj> 


CO 


o 


o 


$1 


in 
t- 


CN 
1*1 



CI 


s? 


cn 


o 
© 


rj 


s? 


c\ 

CN 


o 


<-J 


n? 


<N 

o 


© 



— in r~ 



CO 


£ 




CO 


o 
in 


r 
c 


"1 


:° 




rsi 


q 

in 


c 

I. 


rn 


;? 


r 




in 


1 



s ^ 



o\ no oN 

SO „J CN 



v r- r- no \o o 



CN 


— Sn 


u-n. 




O 


CN CN 


T 













TO no o 

T — CN 



N^ 

CO o^ 
' CO 



O r- 



CN- « 



nO v o 

t-~ on o on 

~. co" ^. r-; °. 

r~ no — o r~ 



NO ON 

no r^ 



CN cN 



t s? 

no' °. 

CN CN 



CO S? 

CN TT 
CN 



o 2 o g 



-a nu « — 

a_> -a > — 

iL = \1 « 

C3 2 i- 00 

" s <: c 

^ 3 « 2 



Pi 



OJ <U 3 S 
DO DO C C3 






« 2 u u 

cj 33 2 t- 

co co ■ — O 

U « 73 -g 

a. a. « 5. 

«J oj re c 

i_ i_ o — 

u u « P 

5 2 "°- =^ 

DOC.. 

DO OO « C 

c c '-5 ~ 



Z 



— cn m 



48 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: GailJohnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlert Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, November 14, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. 

01 1899 [Contracting for Security Services, Office of Contract Administration, Central Shops Division] 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that security services can be practically performed by 

private contractor for lower cost than similar services performed by City and County employees. (Purchaser) 

10/18/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jim Johnson, Office of Contract 

Administration, Central Shops Division. 

RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



01 1985 |Office of Labor Standards Enforcement] 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing to get a progress report on the work and staffing of the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement. 

10/29/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Audit, Labor and Government Efficiency Committee. 

1 1/8/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Judith Blackwell, Director, Office of Contract Administration: Supervisor 

McGoldrick; Peter Cerri, Office of Labor Standards: Stan Warren, Building Trades Council. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 

Absent: 1 - Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printvd at 3:0' PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 



011848 [New Deadline for Submission of Budget to Board of Supervisors] 
Supervisors McGoldrick, Daly 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Sections 3.3 and 3.4 to require the Mayor to submit the proposed 
budget to the Board of Supervisors by April 30 for the 2002-2003 budget, and by February 28 of each year for 
subsequent budgets, and revising the deadlines for City departments to submit budgets to the Controller, and 
for the Controller to submit the consolidated budget to the Mayor, in order to reflect the new deadlines for 
submission to the Board of Supervisors. 
10/15/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. 
10/29/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

1 1/7/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington, 
Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Health; Trent 
Rhorer, Director, Department of Human Services; Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board; Tiffany Mock-Goeman; Jim Haas; John Avalos, 
Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Kevin Hickey (youth services worker); Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children 
and Youth; Marc Salomon; Alan Oliver, Lauren Porter, People's Budget Collaborative; Sandra Fewer; Rebecca Vilkomerson, People's 
Budget Collaborative; Glynn Washington, Human Services Network; Jon Osaki; Larry Lattimore, POWER; Calvin Davis, POWER; 
Richard Heasley, Executive Director, Conard House; Debbi Lerman, San Francisco Human Services Network; John Bardis; Clarice 
Duma, Senior Legislative Analyst, Board of Supervisors; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
Continued to November 14, 2001. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor McGoldrick; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Section 3.3 to (1) require the Mayor to submit a preliminary budget 
to the Board of Supervisors by the first working day of April 2002 for the 2002-2003 fiscal year; (2) require 
that the existing timetable for submission of the budget expire on December 31, 2002, and (3) state the 
intention of the Board of Supervisors to approve a new timetable for subsequent fiscal years by not later than 
September 30, 2002. 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes; 2 - Leno, Peskin 
Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



01 1 938 [Contracting out Shelter and Intake Services] 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that intake and shelter services to status offenders can 
be practically performed by private contractor for lower cost than similar services performed by City and 
County employees. (Juvenile Probation Department) 
10/31/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Lonnie Holmes, Juvenile Probation 
Department. 

RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011946 [Accept-Expend Federal Grant] 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $2,000,000.00 

from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for acquisition of clean air vehicles and infrastructure, and 

related technical assistance. (Airport Commission) 

10/23/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport. 

Amended by placing $100,000 on reserve. 

AMENDED. 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:07 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



November 14, 2001 



Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $2,000,000.00 
from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for acquisition of clean ah vehicles and infrastructure, and 
related technical assistance; placing SI 00,000 on reserve. (Airport Commission) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011947 [Accept-Expend Federal Grant] 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $15,435,276.00 

from the Federal Administration for assistance in projects under the Airport Improvement Program (A. I. P. 15). 

(Airport Commission) 

10/23/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport. 

Amended on page 1, lines 3 and 18, after "accept, " by adding "retroactively. " 

AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept retroactively and expend a grant in the amount of 
$15,435,276.00 from the Federal Aviation Administration for assistance in projects under the Airport 
Improvement Program (A. I. P. 15). (Airport Commission) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



01 1964 [Agreement to Sell Property on Wilder Street, Glen Park] 
Supervisors Leno, Daly, Hall 

Resolution approving and authorizing an agreement with Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC, for the sale of 
real property located on Wilder Street in Glen Park, for a purchase price of $285,000; finding that competitive 
bidding is impractical or impossible; adopting findings that the conveyance is exempt from Environmental 
Review and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Eight Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 
101.1; and authorizing the Director of Property to execute documents, make certain modifications and take 
certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. 
10/29/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Division of Real Estate; 
David Prowler, Manager, Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC; Bruce Bonaker; Ms. Nordstrom, President, 
Glen Park Association. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



011934 [Amending Administrative Code to increase the cash revolving fund for Public Health] 

Ordinance amending Section 10.154 of the San Francisco Administrative Code increasing the cash revolving 
account for Public Health from $25,000 to $43,000. (Public Health Department) 
10/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; James Alexander. Department of Public 
Health; Edward Harrington, Controller. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:0' P.\f on .? .104 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 



011794 [Arts Commission Street Artists Fund - Accumulation of Interest] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code by amending Section 10.100-32 to expressly 
allow for accumulation of interest on any amount deposited in the Arts Commission Street Artists Fund. 
10/9/01, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance Committee, expires on 1 1/8/2001. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Howard Lazaar, Street Artist Program 
Director, Arts Commission; Edward Harrington, Controller; William Clark. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



LITIGATION 



Conference with City Attorney 

[Convene in Closed Session] 

Motion that the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors convene in closed session with the City 
Attorney, under the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and Administrative Code Section 67.8 
(3), for the purpose of conferring with, or receiving advice from, the City Attorney regarding proposed 
settlements in the lawsuits or claims listed below. 

Unanimous vote to convene in closed session by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 

01 1 870 [Settlement of Business Tax Lawsuit] 

Ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. Inc. versus the 
City and County of San Francisco by payment of a total amount not to exceed $1,200,000.00; the lawsuit was 
filed on June 22, 2001 in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 322-341, entitled Morgan Stanley Dean 
Witter & Co. Inc., et. al. v. City and County of San Francisco; the settlement includes any claims for the 2000 
tax year and plaintiffs shall not file any claims for refunds pursuant to Section 1021 of Article 12B of the San 
Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code. (City Attorney) 
10/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Audit, Labor and Government Efficiency Committee. 
10/26/01 , TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

The Finance Committee requests that the Board hear this item in closed session. 
REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



Report on Closed Session. 



Deputy City Attorney Ted Lakey reported that the Finance Committee has met in closed session with the City 
Attorney, under the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and Administrative Code Section 67.8 
(3), for the purpose of conferring with, or receiving advice from, the City Attorney regarding settlements in the 
lawsuits or claims listed above. 

City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed al 3:07 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 



[Elect Not to Disclose] 

Motion that the Committee finds that it is in the best interest of the public that the Committee elect at this time 

not to disclose its closed session deliberations concerning the anticipated litigation listed above. 

Unanimous vote not to disclose discussion to the public by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 

ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 12:54 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Printed at i:0~ I'M on .? .? HJ 



.35 

t/oi 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF^SAN FRANCISCO 



JBOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



November 8, 2001 



TO: 



^Finance Committee 



FROM: , Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: .November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 1- File 01-1899 

Department: 

Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 

Description: 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

NOV 1 3 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that security services at the Central Shops Division can 
continue to be practically performed by a private 
contractor for lower than similar services by City and 
County employees. 



Security services at the Central Shops Division 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services which had been 
performed by City emploj'ees if the Controller certifies 
and the Board of Supervisors concurs that such services 
can in fact be performed by private firms at a lower cost 
than similar work performed by employees of the City and 
County. 

The Controller has certified that the security services for 
the Central Shops Division could be performed by a 
contractor at a lower cost, than if such services were 
performed by enrpk^ees of the City and County. The 
Controller has determined that contracting for security 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, Finance Committee Meeting 

services at the Central Shops Division for FY 2001-2002 
would result in the following estimated savings: 

Lowest Salary Highest Salary 

Step Step 



Citv Operated Service Costs 






Salaries 


$115,688 


$144,310 


Holiday Pay 


6,512 


8,123 


Night Differential 


8,046 


10,036 


Variable Fringe Benefits 


19,953 


24,890 


Fixed Fringe Benefits 


16.722 


16.722 


Total City Cost 


$166,921 


$204,081 


Contractual Service Costs 


95,265 


95.265 


Estimated Savings 


$71,656 


$108,816 



Comments: 1. According to Mr. Carlos Chavez, of the Department of 

Administrative Services, the security services were 
originally contracted out in September 1983 and as 
required by Charter Section 10.104 were first certified in 
1983 and have been contracted out continually since that 
time. 

2. Mr. Chavez also states that the Contractual Service 
Cost used for the purpose of analysis is an estimate of the 
total number security services hours that the Central 
Shop anticipates using in FY 2001-2002 multiplied by the 
Contractor's hourly rate. 

3. According to Mr. Chavez, the security services are 
currently, being provided by McCoy Patrol Services. Mr. 
Chavez also states that the current contract with McCoy 
Patrol Services is a month to month contract. The 
proposed resolution would approve the Controller's 
certification for the first fiscal year of the four-year 
contract. Mr. Chavez adds that the contract was put out 
to bid on October 8, 2001. Mr. Chavez also states that 
once a contractor is selected, the new contract would be 
for a period of four years, beginning January 1, 2002 and 
ending December 31, 2006. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire completed 
by the department is attached to this report. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



*u 



Attachment 
CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 

DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING/ CENTRAL SHOPS 

CONTRACT SERVICES: SKCTreTTY CT TABT) ^nyjr E1 _________^ 

CONTRACT PERIOD: 2001- 2QQ5 



(1 ) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 
Class 7410 Automotive Service Worker 

(2) now many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 
None 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 

_ Employees vere reassigned to Service Worker duties that were understaffed 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent of services to be contracted out? 
100Z of three (3) employees 

(5) SSX^"" SerV,CeS bSSn C0ntr3Cted ° Ut? ' S "* ,ike ' y t0 be a ° ne -' Jme 0r -n ongoing request for 

Services were originally contracted out in September 1983. An ongoing 
request. s 

(5) . What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each subsequent 

1983 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 
HBE participation will be included in the bid process. 

(8) Does the proposed contractor provide health insurance for its employees? 



Yes 



(3) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses'' If sn ?rp the e „™ u 

A -) 7 e s B.) yes 

(10) Does the proposed contractor pay meet the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance? 
Yes 




Department Representative: f^JTM JffHNSON 
Telephone Number (415) 550-4600 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 -File 01-1848 

Note: This proposed ordinance was continued by the Finance Committee at 

its meeting of November 7, 2001. The Budget Analyst has been 
informed that an amendment of the whole will be submitted for the 
proposed ordinance. This report is based on the amendment of the 
whole. The amendment of the whole would set a date for submission of 
the Mayor's recommended annual budget to the Board of Supervisors 
on April 15 of each year. Further, the Budget Analyst understands 
that the sponsor of the proposed ordinance is considering another 
amendment to require that the Mayor submit the recommended 
annual budget to the Board of Supervisors on April 30, 2002 for the FY 
2002-2003 budget, and on April 15 of each year thereafter. Therefore, 
this report reflects that change in the proposed ordinance as well. 

Items: This ordinance would amend Administrative Code 

Sections 3.3 and 3.4 to require the Mayor to submit the 
Mayor's recommended annual budget to the Board of 
Supervisors by April 30 of 2002 for the FY 2002-2003 
budget and April 15 of each year thereafter. This 
ordinance would also revise the deadline dates for City 
departments to submit budgets to the Controller, and for 
the Controller to submit the consolidated budget to the 
Mayor, in order to reflect the new deadline dates for 
submission to the Board of Supervisors. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would amend Administrative 

Code Sections 3.3 and 3.4 as follows: 

• The date by which City departments must submit 
budget requests to the Controller for compilation 
would be changed from the 21 st day of February of 
each year to the seventh day of January of each year,); 

• The date by which the City Controller transmits a 
consolidated budget request to the Mayor would be 
changed from the first working day of March to the 
15th working day of January of each year; 

• The date by which the Mayor would transmit the 
Mayor's Recommended Budget to the Board of 
Supervisors would be changed from the first working 
day of June to April 30, 2002 for the FY 2002-2003 
budget, and on April 15 of each year thereafter. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. The Controller's statement on the effect on the cost of 

government of a pending Charter Amendment on this 
subject matter, was based on the Mayor being required to 
submit the annual proposed budget to the Board of 
Supervisors on or before February 28 of each year. On 
October 23, 2001, the Rules Committee amended that 
Charter Amendment to change the date that the Mayor 
would be required to submit the annual proposed budget to 
the Board of Supervisors from on or before February 28 to 
on or before April 15. Assuming a date of no later than 
February 28, the Controller's Office had advised that the 
subject Charter Amendment is likely to result in a cost of 
approximately $1,100,000, including less than half such 
costs for Budget Analyst services, with the remaining costs 
for additional departmental analytical staff for the 16 larger 
City departments, one additional Controller position and 
one additional Clerk of the Board staff position. As of the 
writing of this report the Controller had not submitted a 
revised cost estimate with respect to the proposed budget 
submission deadline date of April 30, 2002. 

2. Presently, under Charter Section 9.100 and 
Administrative Code Section 3.3, the Board of Supervisors 
has approximately one month to review the budget and to 
conduct budget hearings before the Finance Committee in 
order that the Finance Committee's recommended budget 
and Annual Appropriation Ordinance is transmitted to the 
full Board for adoption prior to the absolute deadline of not 
later than August 1 of each year. By receiving the Mayor's 
proposed budget no later than April 30 of 2002, the Board of 
Supervisors would have additional time to review the budget 
and conduct budget hearings. 

3. However, it should be noted that a proposed budget, 
submitted by the Mayor by April 30, 2002 could be subject to 
substantial revision, by both the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors, based upon new or updated information, prior 
to the August 1 deadline for final approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. Budget information that is likely to change 
during this period could include revenue estimates, 
increased salary and benefits costs resulting from 
Memoranda of Understanding approved after the budget is 
submitted and changes to the costs of non-labor 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

expenditures such as the recent volatility in utility prices 
and increased expenditures for non-profit contractors. 

4. The Budget Analyst believes that additional time 
expended on reviewing the budget should result in a more 
in-depth analysis of the budget. However, the Budget 
Analyst believes that the precise length of time to be 
devoted to the annual budget review is a policy decision for 
the Board of Supervisors. 

5. The Finance Committee continued this proposed 
ordinance at its meeting of November 7, 2001. The 
Committee has requested that the Mayor's Budget Director 
respond to the question of whether or not it would be 
possible for the Mayor to transmit the recommended FY 
2002-2003 budget to the Board of Supervisors by April 30, 
2002. Mr. Ben Rosenfield, in response to the Finance 
Committee's request, states that he will present the current 
schedule for compilation and formulation of the Mayor's 
recommended FY 2002-2003 budget and provide the Finance 
Committee with a discussion of the difficulties involved in 
significantly altering that schedule in order to meet the 
April 30, 2002 date for transmittal of the Mayor's 
recommended FY 2002-2003 budget. Mr. Rosenfield states 
that he will also present alternatives for the consideration of 
the Finance Committee. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
BudgetAnalyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 01-1938 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 

Description: 



Juvenile Probation 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that intake and shelter services for status offenders can 
continue to be practically performed by a private 
contractor at lower cost for the year commencing July 1, 
2001 than if work were performed by City and County 
employees. 

Shelter and intake services for status offenders 

The Juvende Probation Department first entered into a 
contract with Huckleberry Youth Programs (formerly 
known as Youth Advocates, Inc.) in 1984 to provide a 
community-based central receiving facility for status 
offenders. Status offenders are youth who have run away 
from home, have a history of truancy, or are in other ways 
out of their parents' control, but who are not in the 
criminal justice system. Prior to the contract with 
Huckleberry Youth Programs to provide the community- 
based central receiving facility services, such status 
offenders were retained in Juvenile Hall. 

In 1989 the Juvende Probation Department expanded the 
services provided under the contract with Huckleberry 
Youth Programs to include intake and shelter services for 
status offenders. Huckleberry Youth Programs currently 
provides a 24-hour short-stay shelter and needs 
assessment for youth, with the goal of reuniting youth 
with their family or providing appropriate longer-term 
placement. 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services, if the Controller 
certifies, and the Board of Supervisors concurs, that such 
services can be practically performed by private firms at a 
lower cost than simdar work by City and County 
employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for the 
shelter and intake services for status youth offenders for 
FY 2001-02 would result in estimated savings as follows: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



City-Operated Service Costs 
Salaries 
Fringe benefits 
Total 

Contractual Service Cost* 



Lowest 
Salary 
Step 
$ 854,239 
238,713 



Highest 

Salary 

Step 

$1,022,606 

264.989 



$1,092,952 $1,287,595 



807,400 



832,915 



Estimated Savings 



$ 285,552 $ 454,680 



*According to Mr. Joe Matranga of the Controller's Office, 
Contractual Service Costs include (a) the current contractor's 
cost of $755,515 and (b) 1.0 FTE 8444 Deputy Probation Officer 
in the Juvenile Probation Department, at the lowest salary step 
of $51,885 and highest salary step of $77,400 to monitor the 
contract. 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



1. Mr. Lonnie Holmes of the Juvenile Probation 
Department reports that the Department first entered into 
a contract with Huckleberry Youth Programs, Inc. in 1984 
to provide a central receiving facility for status offenders, 
and that the contract with Huckleberry was expanded in 
1989 to include shelter and intake services. The central 
receiving facility was first certified under Charter Section 
10.104 in 1984. The expanded shelter and intake services 
contract was first certified by the Controller as being less 
expensive than if the services were performed by City 
employees in 1989, and the shelter and intake services have 
been continuously provided under the outside contract since 
then. 

2. As noted above, the Contractual Service Cost used for 
the purpose of the analysis is based on: (a) the current 
contractor's cost of $755,515 to provide shelter and intake 
services, and (b) the salary and fringe benefits of 1.0 FTE 
8444 Deputy Probation Officer, ranging from $51,885 at the 
lowest salary step to $77,400 at the highest salary step. 
This position is responsible for monitoring the contract. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Juvenile Probation Department's responses is shown in the 
Attachment to this report. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



• ■ " Attachment I 

CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE Page X of 2 
DEPARTMENT: Juvenile Probation Department 
CONTRACT SERVICES: Status Offender Services 
CONTRACT PERIOD: July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002 

(1) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 

The Juvenile Hall Counselors: 3- 8315 Assistant Counselors 7-8320 Counselors, 
1-8316 Counselor II 

(2) How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 

None. Eleven (11) positions were cut from the Budget. No permanent staff were laid off 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
No permanent employees were laid off. 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent on services to be contracted out? 

50% of 1-8414 Supervising Probation Officer 100% of 2- 8318 Counselor II 

100% of 1-8442 Senior Probation Officer 100% of 14 - 8320 Counselor 

1 00% of 3-8440 Probation Officer 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or an ongoing request for 
contracting out? 

The contract with Huckleberry Youth Programs, Inc., for a central receiving facility was- first entered into 
by the Juvenile Probation Department February 1, 1984. The contract expanded to include shelter and 
intake for status offenders on April 1, 1988. This agreement is on-going and the Department expects to 
continue to contract these services out 



■(6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each subsequent 
year? 

The first year for the central receiving contract was fiscal year 1 983/34. The first year for the expanded 
contract was fiscal year 1988/89. This contract has been renewed each subsequent year. 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

Huckleberry Youth Programs, Inc. is a non-profit agency therefore, it does not fall within purview of 
MBE/WBE goals. Extensive outreach was accomplished at the Request for Qualification when the 
Department was seeking potential MBE/WBE providers'' 

(8) Does the proposed contractor provide health insurance for its employees? 
Yes. The contractors provides health benefits to all it's employees. 



10 



Attachment T . 
Page 2 of 2 



(9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are the same benefits 
provided to employees with domestic partners? If not, how does the proposed contractor comply with the 
Domestic Partners ordinance? This contractor is in compliance with all city mandates regarding benefits 
to employees, spouses and domestic partners. 



(10) Does the proposed contractor pay meet the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance? 
This contractor is in compliance with the City's Minimum compensation Ordinance. 



Department Representative: Lonnie S. Holmes 
Telephone Number 415-753-7852 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 01-1946 

Department: 

Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 
Matching Funds: 



Indirect Costs: 



Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept 
and expend a grant in the amount of $2,000,000 from the 
Federal Aviation Administration for acquisition of clean air 
vehicles and infrastructure, and related technical 
assistance. 

$2,000,000 

October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2005 (four years). 
According to Mr. Roger Hooson of the Airport, the Airport 
has not accepted or expended any funds to date. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

$2,000,000 in matching funds is required (100 percent of 
$2,000,000 in FAA grant funds). The Airport has identified 
$2,022,988 in funds from the following sources: 



Airport Revenues (See Comment No. 2) 


$497,796 


Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District 


100,000 


Delta/United Airlines 


1.425.192 


Total 


$2,022,988 



Indirect costs would be waived in order to maximize use of 
grant funds for the acquisition of clean air vehicles and 
related costs. 

The Airport's Clean Vehicle Policy was created in February 
of 2000 to encourage transportation operators at the 
Airport to replace a portion of their gasoline- and diesel- 
powered vehicles with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or 
electric vehicles. To complement the initiative, the Airport 
submitted an application for clean air vehicle funding 
through the FAA's Inherently Low Emission Airport 
Vehicle (ILEAV) Pilot Program on February 9, 2001. On 
May 27, 2001, the FAA selected San Francisco 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



International Airport (SFIA) as one of ten airports in the 
nation to participate in the ILEAV Pilot Program. 

According to Mr. Hooson, the subject grant would cover 50 
percent of the incremental costs of all CNG and electric 
vehicles over gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, 50 
percent of related technical assistance and approximately 
50 percent of equipment costs for a total of $2,000,000. The 
requested grant funds of $2,000,000 would subsidize a) 50 
percent of the $1,143,818 incremental acquisition costs for 
the purchase of CNG and electric vehicles instead of 
gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, b) approximately 50 
percent of the $2,679,170 incremental acquisition costs for 
the purchase of electric baggage tugs, electric belt loaders 
and electric fast chargers, or a total of $3,822,988 and c) 50 
percent of the $200,000 related evaluation, monitoring and 
reporting costs. Attachment I shows that the grant would 
provide approximately 16.6 percent, or $2,000,000, of the 
total cost to acquire or lease the equipment and evaluation, 
monitoring, and reporting contract of $12,044,500. The 
Airport, SFO Shuttle Bus Company, United Airlines, and 
Delta Airlines would each pay their share of the remaining 
balance of $10,044,500, or 83.4 percent, of the estimated 
total cost of $12,044,500 to acquire or lease the equipment 
and evaluation, monitoring, and reporting. 

The subject grant will fund incremental capital costs for the 
following 327 vehicles and equipment items: (a) 136 CNG 
and electric vehicles to be used for Airport staff 
transportation and utility work (b) 4 CNG passenger 
shuttle buses for the SFO Shuttle Bus Company to provide 
public and employee shuttle bus services to and from the 
Airport parking lots, (c) 176 electric aircraft baggage 
transports and electric belt loaders to support aircraft ramp 
operations and passenger baggage, mail and cargo transfer, 
for United and Delta Airlines, and (d) 11 electric fast 
charger units for United and Delta Airlines to recharge 
electric vehicles. 

Transportation operators that would participate in this 
program are: the Airport, SFO Shuttle Bus Company, Delta 
Airlines, and United Airlines. The Airport would provide 
$471,909 in matching funds for the incremental costs of 136 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



CNG and electric vehicles to be used by the Airport, and 
$25,887 in matching funds for evaluation, monitoring and 
reporting, (see Comment 4). Delta and United Airlines 
would provide $1,425,192 in matching funds for the 
incremental costs of 187 aircraft baggage transports and 
belt loaders, and fast chargers and $74,113 of the $200,000 
cost of evaluation, monitoring, and reporting. The clean air 
vehicles and equipment would be divided as follows: (a) 
Delta Airlines would purchase and operate 18 baggage 
transports, 9 belt loaders and 3 fast chargers, and (b) 
United Airlines would operate 100 baggage transports, 49 
belt loaders and 8 fast chargers. The SFO Shuttle Bus 
Company would purchase and operate the 4 New Flyer 
C40LF CNG shuttle buses with the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District providing $100,000 in matching funds 
for 50 percent of the incremental costs, for purchase of the 
CNG shuttle buses. The SFO Shuttle Bus Company would 
not pay any of the incremental costs for the CNG shuttle 
buses. According to the Airport, all clean air vehicles are 
expected to be in operation by 2004. 

According to Mr. Hooson, the Airport anticipates funding 
on a reimbursement basis from the FAA. Mr. Hooson 
reports that vehicle and equipment suppliers would invoice 
the Airport, SFO Shuttle Bus Company, United Airlines 
and Delta Airlines once the vehicles have been delivered. 
The Airport would then submit a request for 
reimbursement to the FAA on behalf of itself and the three 
transportation operators. Once payment has been received 
from the FAA, the Airport would then reimburse the 
Airport Operating Fund and the transportation operators 
up to 50 percent for the incremental cost or $1,900,000 for 
the CNG and electric vehicles (the total grant award of 
$2,000,000 less the $100,000 in grant funds to be used for 
evaluation, monitoring and reporting). The remaining 
approximately 50 percent or $1,922,988 would be provided 
by matching funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: 



Increme 


ntal Cost of Clean 


Air Vehicles Over Diesel- and Gasoline Vehicles 


Type of Vehicle 
or Equipment 


Transportation 

Operator 

Share 


Airport 
Share 


Bay Area Air 

Quality 
Management 
District Share 


FAA Share 


Total 

Incremental 

Cost 


4 CNG Shuttle 
Buses 


SFO Shuttle Bus 
Co. $0 


— 


$100,000 


$100,000 


$200,000 


136 Staff and 
Utility 

Vehicles 


— 


$471,909 


— 


471,909 


943,818 


18 baggage 
tugs and 9 belt 
loaders 


Delta Airlines 
$7,335 




— 


7,335 


14,670 


100 baggage tugs 
and 49 belt loaders 


United Airlines 
796,000 




— 


796,000 


1,592,000 


11 fast chargers: 
8 UA, 3 DL 


Delta 149,385 
United 398.359 




— 


524.756 


1,072.500 


Subtotal 


$1,351,079 


$471,909 


$100,000 


$1,900,000 


$3,822,988 




Technical Services 


Technical 

Services 


Transportation 

Operator 

Share 


Airport 
Share 


Bay Area Air 

Quality 
Management 
District Share 


FAA Share 


Total Cost 


Evaluation, 
Monitoring and 
Consulting (See 
Comment 4) 


$74,113 


$25,887 


— 


S100.000 


$200,000 




| Total 


$1,425,192 


$497,796 


$100,000 


$2,000,000 


$4,022,988 



Comments: 



1. According to the Airport, Airport matching funds totaling 
$497,796 would provide $25,887 for evaluation, monitoring 
and reporting, and $471,909 for clean air vehicles. 

2. Mr. Hooson states that if United and Delta Airlines 
decide not to acquire the electric baggage tugs, belt loaders, 
and fast chargers, the Airlines would forfeit the FAA grant 
money and FAA funds. Therefore, $1,328,091 in FAA grant 
funds would be withheld by the FAA. 

3. According to Mr. Hooson, the estimated maintenance 
costs for the gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to be 
replaced are approximately $700 annually per vehicle. The 
estimated maintenance costs for the new 136 CNG and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

electric vehicles for the Airport are between $64 and $425 
annually per vehicle or between $275 and $636 less than 
the $700 maintenance cost for gasoline and diesel power 
vehicles. 

4. According to Mr. Hooson, evaluation, monitoring and 
consulting costs of $200,000, of which $25,887 would be 
funded from Airport revenues, would be performed by an 
environmental consultant to be selected through a Request 
for Proposal process conducted by the Airport. The 
environmental consultant selection would not need FAA 
approval. The selected consultant would verify and monitor 
CNG and electric, and gasoline and diesel powered vehicle 
emissions and report findings to the Airport. The Budget 
Analyst recommends that the $100,000 in FAA funds for 
evaluation, monitoring and consulting costs be reserved 
pending contractor selection by the Airport and submission 
of budget details including hours and hourly rates. 

5. Attachment II is the Airport's Grant Application 
Information Form, which includes the Disability Access 
Checklist. 

Recommendations: 1. Reserve $100,000 for evaluation, monitoring, and 

consulting costs in accordance with Comment 4. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Attachment I 



CO 

Q 

Z 

z> 

LL 

H 
Z 
< 

o 

u_ 
O 

z 
o 

H- 

c* 
i- 
co 

Q 

Q 

LL! 

co 
o 

CL 

o 
oi 

Q. 

CO 



o 
UJ 






en 

. --. O 

o 

"re 

H 




© 



LO 




o_ 
0" 

LO 


O 
O 
O 
O 

O 
CO 


O 
O 

o_ 

Lo" 
I s - 

CM 


O 
O 
O 
LO 

I s - 

CM 


S 

O 
O 
O 
-5" 







0" 


CM 







I s - 

-r 




O 

O 

o_ 

CM' 





cn 
csi 
I s - 





O 
o_ 
0" 

co 




uo_ 
M-" 
^r 

CO 

in 




o_ 
0" 


CM 





LO 

O 

cm" 


c 

.-•..■ re ..; 

.03 

H U- 


O 
CD 
CM 

O 
CM 

faO- 


O 
CD 
■<* 
CM~ 

O 



cd 


O 

I s - 

co 
co 


O 
I s - 

co" 
co 


O 

cm" 

CD 


O 
CO 

CM 


CM 
LO 

LO 

CO 
CO 
LO 


CM 

CD 
CN 


LO 
LO 
I s - 
•<* 
CM 
LO 












0" 

GO 


O 
O 
O 
O 
O 




o_ 
0" 



CM." 


u c 
> o 


CO 


co 


CM 






CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




^r 


I s - 

CM 1 
CO 






o 

- s 

CO 





in 

CM 





uo" 

CM 




O 
in" 

CM 






10" 

CM 




o_ 
un" 

CM 






LO 
CM 




10" 

CM 


O 
O 
LO 

CO 


O 
O 
UO 

CO 


O 
O 
IO 

N-" 

01 





uo" 

CM 

co 








Incremental 
Cost Per 
Vehicle 





0" 



\r 

O 

co~ 




00 
CO 


O 

a> 

co" 




a> 
cd" 


O 
T 
03 

CD 


O 
■<3- 

cr> 

CD 


CO 
CM 


CO 
CM 

CD 





UO 

cn 




o_ 
0" 

LO 








■o~\: : ; 
"'. ro~ $ 

'■ hotm 

. ■-.-a. ":c 

O -CO 



I s - 

CO 



I s - 

CO 



I s - 

co" 




I s - 

co" 



I s - 

co" 


O 

I s - 

-3- 
CO 




CO 


CD 
UO 


■* 

CD 
UO 


CO 



a>" 
■* 






uo" 
CM 




O 
O 
O 
0" 
O 


: : 


CD " 

■S.-S-" 
C3:itr> 






I s - 
<* 
co" 



I s - 

CO 



I s - 
*t 

co" 




I s - 
^_ 
co 


O 
I s - 

CO" 



co" 


CD 
LO 


CO 

LO 



I s - 


O 
O 
O 
UO 
CM 








'. :■ ° ■'• 
• ■ 0. ■. 

f! !c ■ t! 

■ ■ ■ 

> ■ '' 

■. >-" o> '■'•~ 

.v, m-'.in 

re 

• mo 





CO 
C/> 




CD 

o_ 

CO 




CO 

o_ 

00" 


O 
eo 

CD 
CO 




CD 

O 
co" 




CO 



CO 




CD 
O 
CO 


CO 

LO" 

CM 


I s - 

co 

LO 
CM 




O 
O 

o_ 

LO" 
I s - 
CM 








Vehiclo 
Model 




D 

Q 
3 
^c 
O 

'a. 

c 


co 


en 
cu 
O) 

c 

TO 


CO 

g 

O > 


c 

CO 

> 


10 <fl 

<? re 


c 
re 
> 

., 
CO "£ 
CM O 

LU 5 



z 


n 
O 




z 



CO 

3 

O 

CD 

cn 

CO 

co 
CD 


CO 

O 
T3 
CD 
O 

m 


V) 

B 

CO 

n 

^: 
O 

CO 

eg 
Li. 


O 

z 


LL 

_l 
to 

T 3 

m 






— 


« 
o> re 
> S 


— 



TO 
O 
LL. 


TO 

O 
LL 


TO 

O 
LL 


n 


>. 




CO 
"TO 

c 




CD 
LL 

O 




Transport i; 'V.>; 
Operator 



a, 

< 


re 

"cB 

Q 
TO 

c 
re 
w 

TO 0) 

aj C 
E !^ 

-3 < 


LO 

3 

m 

i 1 

O E 

LL O 
CO O 


"ro 


3 

CO 


CD 

re » 
-9 re 

J s 

in 
CD tn 
t- < 


■ 



1- 



>. JCO 

CD CD 

jo: > 



— CD 

c o 

■2 E 

SS o 

CD W 

Q. CO 

O C3) 

CD TO 

1 re 



~ T3 

CO w 

C O 

"2 « 

s s 

^3 CO 

= re 

= E 

-E§ 

2 5, 

CO CL 

D- < 



17 



Attachment II 

File Number: Pape 1 of 2 

(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 

Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept and 
expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1 . Grant Title: FAA ILEAV Clean Air Vehicle Grant 

2. Department: Airport Commission 

3. Contact Person: Roger Hooson Telephone: (650) 821-651 1 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[x] Approved by funding agency . [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $2,000,000 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $2,022,988 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 
Airport Commission: $497,796 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District: $100,000 
Airlines: $1,425,192 

7a. Grant Source Agency: Federal Aviation Administration 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: 

The project will pay the incremental clean air vehicle cost of 136 natural gas and electric autos and pickups fc 
Airport Commission use, 4 CNG shuttle buses for an Airport parking lot contractor (City to own after 10 years, 
1 76 aircraft service vehicles for United and Delta Airlines, 1 1 electric vehicle chargers for the above airlines, 
and $200,000 in technical assistance in evaluating and monitoring the deployment. 

SFO was awarded this grant in a national competition involving 21 airports. 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: October 1, 2001 End-Date: September 30, 2005 



10. Number of new positions created and funded: 

None 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends? 

N/A 



18 



• ' • Attachment II 

12a. Amount budgeted for contractual sen/ices: P a 5e 2 of 2 

N/A 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? 

At this point, it is not anticipated that these sen/ices will need to be put out to bid. 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE/WBE 

requirements? N/A 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? N/A 

13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [x] No 

b1 . If yes, how much? $ 

b2. How was the amount calculated? 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [x] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 

[ ] Other (please explain): 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 



"Disability Access Checklist*** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[x] Existing Site(s) [ ] Existing Structure(s) [x] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
all other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Comments: 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer: Ron Fonq 

(Name) 



Date Reviewed: >^ Z-% 1^^' 



\ 
Department Approval: 




Sr\ |A, [^rO(\ Coo^-A^. ,,^-io-iori 



(Title) 



19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 -File 01-1947 

Department: 

Item: 



Source of Funds: 
Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Required Match: 

Indirect Costs: 

Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport to accept and expend a 
grant in the amount of $15,435,276 from the Federal 
Aviation Administration for three Airport Improvement 
Projects. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

$15,435,276 

September 22, 2000 through September 22, 2004 (four 
years) (see Comment No. 1). 

$5,145,092, in Airport Commercial Paper Proceeds (see 
Comment No. 5). 

The Airport proposes to waive the inclusion of indirect 
costs to maximize the use of such funds for the subject 
projects. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Airport to 
accept and expend FAA grant funds for three capital 
improvement projects under the Airport Improvement 
Program. 

The three Airport capital improvement projects include: 

(a) Rehabilitation of Taxiway "L" between Runway 28R 
and Runway 1R. (Total project costs of $3,162,000, 
including $2,371,500 of subject grant funds). 

The work would include strengthening the cement- 
treated base and resurfacing approximately 5,800 feet 
of Taxiway "L" with asphalt, as well as upgrading 
drainage and lighting as necessary. The purpose of 
the proposed rehabilitation of Taxiway "L" between 
Runway 28R and Runway 1R is to restore the worn 
surface of Taxiway "L" which has not had a major 
repair in 20 years. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

(b) Rehabilitation of the Boarding Area "D" apron 
pavement (the concrete portion where the aircraft 
parks). (Total project costs of $9,310,935, including 
$6,976,451 of subject grant funds). 

Rehabilitation would include the reconstruction and 
overlay of approximately 500,000 square feet of 
Boarding Area "D" cement concrete pavement as well 
as 700,000 square feet of asphalt pavement, for a total 
reconstruction and overlay of 1,200,000 square feet of 
Boarding Area "D". Rehabilitation would also include 
modifications of and additions to existing drainage and 
electrical distribution along Boarding Area "D". The 
purpose of the proposed rehabilitation of Boarding 
Area "D" is to restore the concrete apron and 
surrounding apron area to extend the pavement life 
and to meet FAA slope requirements for aircraft 
parking as well as to allow more aircraft parking. 

(c) Rehabilitation of Boarding Area "F" apron. (Total 
project costs of $8,116,433, including $6,087,325 of 
subject grant funds). 

This project includes the reconstruction and overlay of 
approximately 250,000 square feet the Boarding Area 
"F" concrete apron as well as 350,000 square feet of 
surrounding asphalt pavement and taxi lanes, for a 
total reconstruction and overlay of 600,000 square feet 
of Boarding Area "F\ Rehabilitation would also 
include joint repair, drainage improvement, utility 
relocation and all necessary work to rehabilitate 
Boarding Area "F\ The purpose of the rehabilitation 
of the Boarding Area "F' apron is to restore the 
concrete area where the aircraft are parked and build 
up surrounding apron in order to improve drainage. 

Total estimated project costs for the three Airport capital 
improvement projects will be $20,580,368, of which 
$15,435,276 will be paid from the subject FAA grant and 
$5,145,092 will be paid from Airport Commercial Paper 
Proceeds. 

Budget: The proposed summary budget for the three Airport 

capital improvement projects is as follows: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 







Architectural 














Engineering, 








Airport 






Inspection & 


Total Project 


FAA Grant 




Matching 


Project 


Construction 


Administration 


Costs 


Funds 




Funds 


Taxiway "L" bwtn 














Runway 28R & 1R 


S 2,749,565 


S 412,435 


S 3,162,000 


S 2,371,500 


$ 


790,500 


Boarding Area "D" 














Apron 


8,088,639 


1,213,296 


9,301,935 


6,976,451 


S 


2,325,484 


Boarding Area "F" 














Apron 


7,066,433 


1,050,000 


8,116,433 


6,087,325 


S 


2,029,108 


Total 


$ 17,904,637 


S 2,675,731 


$ 20,580,368 


S 15,435,276 


s 


5,145,092 



Comments: 



Attachment I, provided by the Airport, contains total 
project costs of $20,580,638 broken out by expenditure 
categories for the three Airport capital improvement 
projects. 

1. According to Ms. Cathy Widener of the Airport, the 
Airport became eligible to receive the subject FAA grant 
funds on September 22, 2000. In the attached 
memorandum (Attachment II), Ms. Widener explains that 
the FAA required that the Airport sign an acceptance 
letter prior to September 30, 2000 or risk losing the funds. 
Ms. Widener also advises that the Airport has not 
expended the subject grant monies because the Airport 
was delayed in beginning various airfield construction 
projects due to the opening of the new International 
Terminal. Because the Airport accepted the subject FAA 
grant in the amount of $15,435,276 on September 28, 
2000, the Budget Analyst recommends amending page 
one, lines three and 18 of the proposed resolution by 
inserting the word "retroactively" after the word accept so 
that the phrase reads, "...to accept retroactively and 
expend..." 

2. According to Ms. Josephine Lau of the Airport, existing 
Airport staff would provide on an in-house, civil service 
basis, the architectural engineering, inspection, and 
administrative services (AE, I & Admin) for the proposed 
projects. Ms. Lau states that the total estimated cost of 
$2,675,731 for such services is based on the Airport's 
estimate that, historically, such services will equal 
approximately 13 percent of the total estimated project 
costs of $20,580,368. Ms. Lau also states that 
architectural engineering, inspection and administrative 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

expenses include charges for design services, engineering 
services, project management and oversight, report 
preparations, reproduction charges, advertisements, 
processing invoices and bids and other administrative 
expenses incurred by the Airport. Ms. Lau advises that 
the Airport will be able to complete the three Airport 
capital projects by September 22, 2004, when the grant 
period expires. 

3. As shown in Attachment I, the estimated construction 
costs for the three Airport development projects are 
$17,904,637. Ms. Lau states that the construction 
projects will be performed by outside contractors who will 
be selected through a competitive bid process. 

4. As shown in Attachment I, in the first year of funding 
for the three projects, the Airport has budgeted 
$8,232,147, which includes $6,174,110 in FAA funds and 
$2,058,037 in Airport matching funds from Commercial 
Paper Proceeds. 

5. In Attachment II, provided by the Airport, Ms. 
Widener advises that the Airport's matching funds in the 
amount of $5,145,092 would be funded by Commercial 
Paper Proceeds. Ms. Widener further advises that the 
Board of Supervisors approved the Airport's Commercial 
Paper Program in 1997 (Resolution No. 620-97) and again 
in 1999 (Resolution No. 224-99). Ms. Widener reports 
that Resolution No. 224-99 approved $400,000,000 under 
the Commercial Paper Program for capital projects only. 
Therefore, Ms. Widener advises that since the proposed 
three Airport projects are capital projects, Commercial 
Paper can be used for the matching funds. 

6. Attachment III is the Airport's Grant Application 
Information Form, which includes the disability access 

checklist. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 1 above, amend page 

one, lines three and 18 of the proposed resolution by 
inserting the word "retroactively" after accept so that the 
phrase reads, "...to accept retroactively and expend..." 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Attachment I 













c 


^r 


m 




h- 




































n 




o 


■v 






-r 






































=o_ 




uO 








































o 


C3 




o" 


CD 




CN 




































h- 




CO 




T 




..- 






































r^ 


r-_ 


CN 






















N 








CO 














,_" 


co 


cn" 




CO 


















n 


CO 






CD 








13 






</> 


uo 


t^ 




fc^ 




_J 

< ^ 














co 

rar" 


CD 






co 

o 


< 




















— 


















1— in 














o 






co 








3 


ro 
















o — 














°l 






iq 


Z 






cc 


a5 
















t- 














N-" 


C\" 






O 








— 

CO 


0) 
LL 


s 


o 

o 


0) 


ro 




r- 

d 


















<=r, 






CN 








> 


c 








CD 




CO 





































o 




CO 


o 


^_" 




CD 
O 


































K 


2 






n 












































n 


o 


CO 




cm' 


































a 








w 


w 




lf> 


















































































3 


















































0) 


















































Z 


"to 
cd 


aT 






o 




o 






























<: 








•a 
a> 


o 
o 


5 

cn 


C*3 

O 




-. 






























z 








LL 




CD 
CO 


o 

di 


era 




u 










































r^- 


■** 




*■; 










































o 


cg 


c-j 




CD 


































B" 








o*> 


ia 


G<> 








>. 








































































.O 


CO 

T3 


"ro 
















> 




























m 


0. 


c 
- 

LL 
X3 

a 
n 


"a 

LL 

C 

o 


_ 














a 

< 


f 














CO 

n 


o 

o 






CO 
CO 


< 


Q. 
< 


c 
"5 


— 












CO 
HI 


o 
c 
o 


j 














cd 

CO 

o 


o 
o" 
in 

o 






CD" 


z 


O 

LL 

Z 

o 

1— 


3 


D! 


z 














oe 


T5 


s 














r~" 








CO" 






5 

o 
c 
r> 
— 
S 

s 

E 
















o 

C3 
LU 
r- 
< 


c 

LL 

E 

ro 


S 














fa^ 


tn 






to 




"ca 














I 














CX 


CD 






in 




< 

s 


> 
a: 
< 


•a 

CD 
LL 


"o 












O 

r- 
111 


o 


| 














n 

CD_ 

co" 

CO 


cn 
CN 

co 






ro 

a 


< 

z 


o 


s 


CO 






























o_ 


Ol 






ro 




u. 


S 


LU 
















a 


c 

ro 


a 














CO" 


^" 






CT>" 




z 


3 


















CQ 


S 














fe^/ 


00- 






OO 






CO 












































1- 






O) 












































m 


r- 




o 














EQ 






























O 


LU 




TO 
















* 


























D 


o 
a 

m 




ro 
O d 


2T 


CD 
O 

o 


CD 

o 
o 


CD 

O 

o 






Z 

o 

1- 




| 














CD 
CO 


CD 
CI 






O 

o 
o_ 


z 










CN 










o 




I 














cn" 


rar 






Cn" 




ss 


< 




cd 














LU 
CO 




> 














[v. 


CN 






O 




i— 


z 
o 




LL 
































cxi" 


-* 






CO" 




a 




















5 














t& 


l/> 






to 




< 














T 
































Q. 


o 

LU 

co 






CD 

> 
< 

o 
c 
g 

"o 

5 

LL 

E 

CO 


a 

"5 
DC 

c: 

rr 

2 
a 

3 
a 
S 

6 

•3 


5 
E 



ra 
lL 
c 
g 

< 
a 
< 

a 
"5 
ro 

5 
> 

u 

c 

ra 

O 


c 

CO 

> 

ra 

a. 

LL 
< 

s 

"o 

ra 

> 
O 
13 

ra 
ra. 
ra 
O 








CO 

CD 

o 

O) 

a) 
ro 
O 

CO 
CO 

ro 














c 


c 

T3 

< 

Li] 
< 

a 
c 

"■a 


9) 

CJ 

JZ 

U 


c 




aj 
E 
o 
o 










D 

o 




3 


3 




CO 




O 
o 
3" 


CO 

C 


c 
I 
DO 




C 

GJ 


</> 


ra 
3 


o 

u 
D 

c 


T3 
c 




ra 


CO 


E 
ro 










LL 

c 

re 





e 

o 


O 




< 







00 

— 
c 


1 


E 
c 
3 




ra 

c 
o 
O 


a 


c5 
.2 


c 


< 
1- 


o 










r l 


-J 


CO 

DC 




o 

h- 




O 


0- 


c~ 


H 


a 

LU 


3 
C/3 


c 

'J 


C 


o 


t3 





£ 










O 




















































r-j 






in 




CD 


ra 


£3 


'J 


— 


c 




ra 


£ 






-,.' 


h-' 



24 



FROM SFO INTERNATIONAL AVIATION DEVELOPMENT (TKU)il i'"0| "•■ 

Attachment II 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 
via facsimile 
9 pages total 

TO: Maureen Singleton DATE: 11/01/01 

FROM: Cathy Widener 

SUBJECT; A. I. P. 15- FAA Grant 



The Airport-FAA Airport Improvement Program grant (A. I. P. 15) was awarded on September 22, 
2000 and is out of its normal annual cycle due to a delay in various airfield construction projects 
caused by the opening of the new International Terminal. The Airport is now prepared to resume 
our FAA reimbursement program and is requesting authority to accept and expend these funds. 

While the Airport was unable to use the funds in year fiscal year 2000/2001 , the FAA required the 
Airport to sign the acceptance letter prior to September 30, 2000 or risk losing the funds. While the 
letter of acceptance was signed on September 28, 2000, the Airport has not received the FAA 
funds and no Airport funds have been spent on eligible projects. 

The source of the Airport matching funds in the amount of $5,145,092 will be commercial paper. 
The Board of Supervisors approved the Airport's Commercial Paper Program in 1997 (Resolution 
No. 620-97) and again in 1999 (Resolution No.224-99.) 

Please feel free to contact me should you have further questions. 



25 



Attachment I" 
PaRe 1 of 2 



File Number: 



Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a 
Department to accept and expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1 . Grant Title: Accept and Expend Grant Fund under the Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP), AIP Project No. 01-1-3-06-0221-15 

2. Department: Airport Commission 

3. Contact Person: Cathy Widener Telephone: (650)821-5023 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[X] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $1 5,435,276 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $5,145,092 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): Commercial Papers and/or Bonds 

7a. Grant Source Agency: Federal Aviation Administration 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): N/A 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: As Listed on the FAA-AIP Application 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 
Start Date: September 22, 2000 End Date: September 22, 2004 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the 
grant ends? N/A 

12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: $17,904,637. 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? (Yes, if contract amount is over 

$50,000) following the standard FAA bid and contract procedures. 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's 

MBE/WBE requirements? Possible, but MBE/WBE goals do not apply to 
FAA contracts. 



26 



SOX 3F0 INTERNATIONAL AVIATION DEVELOPMENT At|jc]™||t^IIl 



d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? One-Time 

13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [X] No 

b1. If yes, How much? N/A 
b2. How was the amount calculated? N/A 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 
[ ] Not allowed by granting agency 
[ ] To maximize use of grants funds on direct services 
[X] Other (please explain): According to the Lease and Use Agreement 

between the City of San Francisco and major airlines using San Francisco 

International A'rport, the Annual Service Payment made to the City shall 

constitute full satisfaction of all obligations of the Airport. 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: N/A 
•• Disability Access Checklist" 

1 5. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[X] Existing Site(s) [X] Existing Structures) [ ] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structures(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

[X] New Site(s) [X] New Structures) 

1 6. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have 
reviewed the proposal and concluded that the project as proposed will be in 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all other Federal, State 
and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons 
with disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in 
the comments section: 

Comments: 

Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability 

Reviewer (Name) 

Date Reviewed: October 30. 2001 

Department Approval: 

Ronald Fong SFIA ADA ProRraa Manager 



(Name) (Title) 




Signature) 



27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 01-1964 

Department: Department of Administrative Services 

Division of Real Estate (RED) 

Item: Resolution approving and authorizing an agreement with Glen 

Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC for the sale of City-owned real 
property located on Wilder Street in Glen Park, at a purchase 
price of $285,000; finding that competitive bidding is impractical 
or impossible; adopting findings that the conveyance is exempt 
from Environmental Review and is consistent with the City's 
General Plan and Eight Priority Policies and authorizing the 
Director of Property to execute documents, make certain 
modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this 
resolution. 



Description: The City currently owns a 2,500 square feet (25 feet by 100 feet) 

parcel of land on Wilder Street, between Diamond and 
Arlington, identified as Assessor Block 6745 - Lot 29, in the Glen 
Park neighborhood (the parcel has no address identification). 
Attachment 1 is a map of the proposed parcel. The parcel is 
under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Program and is a 
sewer right of way. The parcel is currently used by the 
Department of Parking and Traffic, together with three 
contiguous parcels leased by the City from Glen Park 
Marketplace Phoenix, LLC, which comprise an additional 7,500 
square feet (2,500 square feet each), as a metered public parking 
lot with 25 parking spaces. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the sale of the subject 
City-owned parcel consisting of 2,500 square feet, at a price of 
$285,000, to Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC (buyer). The 
buyer proposes to use the 2,500 square foot parcel, together with 
13,500 square feet of properties that adjoin the City-owned 
parcel also owned by the buyer, for a mixed use development 
totaling 16,000 square feet. The development project would 
consist of the maximum number of housing units possible, a 
neighborhood grocery store and potentially a branch library for 
use by the City. According to an October 18, 2001 letter from Mr. 
Marc MacDonald, Director of Property, the Public Library and 
the Real Estate Division are currently discussing the inclusion 
of a branch library within the project (see Comment 3). Based on 
existing zoning for the proposed project, up to 20 housing units 
could be built within the 16,000 square feet of the proposed 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

project. Because plans have not yet been developed and 
submitted for the proposed project, it is not known what type of 
housing units will be constructed. It is also not known at this 
time whether the Planning Commission will place conditional 
use requirements for affordable housing units on the proposed 
project. 

Under the proposed agreement for the sale of the City-owned 
property, the buyer, Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC, 
would be required to relocate the main sewer line that currently 
encumbers the property at the buyer's expense, with the 
approval and under the supervision of the Public Utilities 
Commission - Clean Water Program. The estimated cost of 
relocating the sewer line is $90,000. 

As noted above, the subject property is currently used, along 
with three other adjacent 2,500 square foot parcels owned by 
buyer, as a metered parking lot operated by the Department of 
Parking and Traffic. The Department of Parking and Traffic 
currently leases the three parcels at a cost of $575 per month 
($6,900 annually) from Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC. 
The annual parking revenues realized by the City from this 
parking lot is approximately $9,000 according to the 
Department of Parking and Traffic. These leases between the 
City and buyer expire on December 31, 2001. Under the terms of 
the proposed purchase agreement, the City would be allowed to 
continue using the leased space as a public parking lot, together 
with the City property to be sold to the buyer, on a month-to- 
month basis, at the same rental rate of $575 per month, until 
Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC is prepared to begin 
construction on the proposed mixed use development. 

Comments: 1. The proposed resolution would also find that the use of 

competitive bidding by the City in the proposed sale of the 
subject property is impractical or impossible. Attachment 2 is 
memorandum from Mr. Larry Ritter of the Real Estate Division 
to the Budget Analyst which states the reasons as to why the 
use of competitive bidding is impractical or impossible. 

2. According to Mr. Ritter, the proposed sales price of $285,000 
for the City-owned parcel represents more than fair market 
value. This value of $285,000 is based on an appraisal conducted 
by a private appraiser, Carneghi-Bautovich & Partners, Inc., 
retained by the Real Estate Division. The appraisal found that 
the full value of the property was $375,000, less the estimated 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

cost of $90,000 for the relocation of the main sewer line for a net 
value of $285,000. The appraisal was based on 2,500 square feet 
at $150 per square foot less $90,000. The Budget Analyst notes 
that the appraisal was conducted in June of 2000, over one year 
ago. As stated in Attachment 2, both the appraiser and the 
Division of Real Estate state that the current fair market value 
of the subject property, net of the $90,000 cost to relocate the 
sewer line, is less than $285,000 "due to the economic slowdown 
and resulting deteriorating market conditions". 

3. According to Mr. Ritter, the Public Library, Division of Real 
Estate and Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC are in 
discussion concerning the potential inclusion of a new Glen Park 
Branch Library as part of the proposed multi use development 
project. However, this matter has not been finalized. Mr. Ritter 
states that the City could potentially purchase condominium 
space in the proposed development for the Branch Library. Such 
a purchase by the City would require future approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. The City currently leases approximately 
1,500 square feet of space for the Glen Park Branch Library for 
a monthly rent of $1,875 ($22,500 annually) or $1.25 per square 
foot per month, at 653 Chenery Street. The existing lease 
terminates on January 31, 2005. Mr. Ritter estimates that, at 
the earliest, the proposed development project would not be 
completed until sometime in the year 2004. 

4. According to Mr. Ritter, Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, 
LLC has not yet submitted plans to the Department of City 
Planning for the proposed mixed use development that would 
include the subject property to be sold by the City. The process 
for obtaining approval of the development project and beginning 
construction would involve the following additional steps as 
shown in Attachment 2. 

• Conclude negotiations with the Pub He Library and a 
potential grocer for sale of condominium space; 

• Develop project drawings and engage necessary consultants, 
including traffic analysts; 

• Apply for conditional use approval and any necessary 
variances from the City Planning Commission; 

• Obtain necessary entitlements for the proposed project; 

• Obtain building permits; 

• Commence construction. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

30 



Attachment 1 



Assessors Map 



LOTS MERCED 



6745 



MISSION & 30™ ST 

EXT-N HD UNION 

BLR 14 

FAIRMOUNT EXT'N HD ASS'N 

BLK 4 



siziiisn^ 




DIAMOND 



/f^^/^ 's /tfyj/^^^^o^^X 



ii 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment 2 
Page I 5T 2 

Real Estate Division 
Administrative Services Department 



MEMORANDUM 

November 7, 2001 



VIA FACSIMILE 252-0461 



TO: 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 



Ken Bruce 

Budget Analyst Office 



Larry Ritter 

Principal Real Property Officer 

Resolution Authorizing Sale of 
Lot 29 in Assessor Block 6745 



As requested, the following is in response to your questions regarding this 
transaction: 

1. Why is competitive bidding impractical or impossible: 

The City lot is encumbered with a main sewer line running down the 
middle of the lot. The sewer line would have to be relocated to develop 
the City lot. It is more practical for the buyer (adjoining owner) to deal 
with this situation. The buyer can relocate the sewer onto his adjacent 
property, leave the sewer in place and utilize this area for open space 
or parking in conjunction with his project or re-route the sewer down 
City streets. 

The City through the Department of Parking & Traffic currently leases 
Lots 26, 27 & 28 (see attached map) from the buyer for off-street 
metered parking. The lease expires December 31, 2001. The 
Agreement provides that the City can lease back its lot at no cost and 
extend the existing lease until such time that the buyer/developer has 
obtained all necessary approvals and permits for his project, which is 
estimated to be December, 2002. 

The Department of Parking and Traffic and buyer have entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding with the intent to negotiate an 
agreement to provide neighborhood use of parking spaces in the 
commercial portion of the proposed project after closing hours. Details 
of such an agreement will be negotiated among Parking and Traffic, the 
buyer and the grocery operator. 



(415)554-9850 
FAX: (415) 552-9216 



Office of the Director of Property 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 
32 



San Francisco, 941 o; 



Attachment 2 
Paee 2 of 2 



Additionally, assembly with the adjacent site will improve the 
opportunities not only for housing, as called for by the General Plan 
Conformity Findings, but also for a neighborhood-serving grocery store 
and possibly a branch library. 



2. What was the basis of the fair market value appraisal? 

The City contracted with Carneghi-Bautovich and Partners, Inc. to 
prepare a fair market value appraisal. The value as of June 2000 was 
$375,000, based on potential for development of 3 units, less an 
estimated $90,000 to relocate the sewer main or $285,000. Although 
the appraisal is over one year old, Mr. Carneghi has recently stated that 
the value today would most likely be less due to the economic 
slowdown and resulting deteriorating market conditions. 



What remains to be done before the buyer/developer can proceed with 
the Project? 

Over the next 9 months, Glen Park Marketplace Phoenix, LLC 
("GPMP") will: 

• Conclude negotiations with Library for a condominium sale to the 
San Francisco Public Library for 9,200 square feet in the to-be- 
constructed building and conclude negotiations with a grocery 
store operator 

• Develop schematic drawings, engage other necessary 
consultants including traffic analysts 

• Apply for conditional use approval and any necessary variances 

• Obtain necessary entitlements 

Within the next 12 months, GPMP will: 

• Obtain building permits 

• Commence construction 



2 
33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 01-1934 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Public Health (DPH) 

Ordinance amending Section 10.154 of the Administrative 
Code to increase the cash revolving account for the 
Department of Public Health from $25,000 to $43,000. 

Article XV, Section 10.125 of the Administrative Code 
authorizes the amounts contained in various 
departmental Cash Revolving Funds. A Cash Revolving 
Fund, otherwise known as a petty cash fund, is a Fund 
with a specifically appropriated amount that a 
department may use to make change for cash 
transactions, make petty cash purchases or make 
disbursements which cannot be conveniently made by 
warrants drawn by the Controller. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Section 10.154 of 
the Administrative Code by increasing the amount 
authorized for the DPH's Cash Revolving Fund by 
$18,000, or 72 percent, from $25,000 to $43,000. 
According to Mr. James Alexander of the DPH, the DPH 
uses its Cash Revolving Fund for such operating expenses 
as providing cash stipends to health-related research 
study participants, petty cash transactions, prepaid 
purchase orders and reimbursements for the Wedge 
program ($40 to $50 payments to high school students 
who are recruited to speak before their peers). According 
to Mr. Alexander, stipends paid to research study 
participants constitute the largest component of the Cash 
Revolving Fund. 

Although the Administrative Code presently authorizes a 
maximum DPH Cash Revolving Fund balance of $25,000, 
Mr. Alexander reports that the department's Cash 
Revolving Fund balance is currently $33,000. 

Mr. Alexander reports that the DPH needs an additional 
$10,000 in this Cash Revolving Fund to pay for stipends 
for persons involved in new grant-funded public health 
and HIV/AIDS research studies. Mr. Alexander advises 
that a $43,000 Fund balance would allow the DPH to 
manage its Cash Revolving Fund expenses more 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



efficiently and effectively. Therefore, Mr. Alexander 
advises that the DPH is requesting that the 
Administrative Code be amended to increase DPH's Cash 
Revolving Account from $25,000, its present authorized 
amount according to the Administrative Code, to $43,000. 

1. Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's Office reports 
that the Controller's Office believes that DPH's request to 
increase their Cash Revolving Fund from $25,000 to 
$43,000 is reasonable based on (a) the information 
provided by the DPH on the use of its Fund and (b) the 
Controller's analysis of the number of times the fund has 
been replenished. According to Mr. Alexander, for the 12- 
month period from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, 
the DPH requested replenishment of the DPH Cash 
Revolving Fund 182 times, or an average of over 15 times 
per month. Mr. Henry Leigh of the Controller's Office 
reports that departments typically should request 
replenishment of their Cash Revolving Funds one to four 
times per month. Mr. Alexander advises the DPH Cash 
Revolving Fund would only need to be replenished 
approximately eight times per month if its Fund balance 
is increased to $43,000 instead of 15 times per month as is 
presently the case. 

2. This request only amends the Administrative Code to 
authorize an increase in the Cash Revolving Fund balance 
and does not result in an additional appropriation of 



Recommendation: 



Approve the proposed ordinance. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 9 - File 01-1794 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Arts Commission 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code 
by amending Section 10.100-32 to expressly allow for 
accumulation of interest on any amount deposited in the Arts 
Commission's Street Artist Fund. 

On May 24, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
ordinance (File 99-0737), which amended the Administrative 
Code to (1) formally establish the Street Artist Fund and to 
(2) allow interest earnings on any balance of monies in the 
Street Artist Fund to be credited to the Street Artist Fund 
instead of to the General Fund. However, on December 18, 
2000, the Board of Supervisors approved another ordinance 
(File 00-1911), which amended the Administrative Code to 
require that if a special fund has an average monthly balance 
in excess of $50,000, interest earnings from the special fund 
would be credited to the special fund but that if the special 
fund had an average monthly balance of $50,000 or less, the 
interest earnings from that special fund would be credited to 
the General Fund, unless otherwise stated or required by 
law. 

This proposed ordinance would amend Section 10.100-32 of 
the Administrative Code to require (1) that interest earnings 
be credited on any balance of monies accumulated in the 
Street Artist Fund; and, (2) that all interest earnings become 
part of the principal of the Street Artist Fund. Mr. Lazar 
advises that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to 
clarify the administration of the Street Artist Fund and to 
restore the provision that all interest earned on the monies 
in the Street Artist Fund, regardless of the balance of the 
Fund, should be credited to the Street Artist Fund and no 
interest earned should be credited to the General Fund. 

1. Mr. Howard Lazar of the Arts Commission states that the 
source of all expenditures pertaining to the Street Artists 
Program, which are subject to appropriation approval of the 
Board of Supervisors, are the application and license fees 
collected from Street Artists and deposited to the Street 
Artist Fund. The Street Artists Program is not allocated any 
General Fund monies. Street Artists' license fees are 
currently $87.50 per quarter or $350 annually. In addition, 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



the initial application fee by Street Artists is currently $20. 
Mr. Lazar reports that the Board of Supervisors last 
increased these Street Artists' fees in 1991. According to Mr. 
Lazar, the Street Artists Program annually generates on 
average $135,000 in application and license fee revenues. 

2. Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's Office advises that 
the Street Artist Fund balance was $132,504, as of November 
7, 2001. Ms. Levin reports that the Street Artist Fund has 
an average monthly balance of approximately $150,000 and 
the Controller's Office posts to the Street Artist Fund the full 
amount of interest earned each month. Ms. Levin advises 
that the Controller's Office posted $8,571 to the Street Artist 
Fund for FY 2000-2001. 

3. Ms. Levin states that the proposed ordinance would 
clarify that all interest earned from monies deposited to the 
Street Artist Fund, regardless of the amount of the Fund 
balance, would be credited to the Street Artist Fund and that 
no such interest would be credited to the General Fund. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



Supervisor Leno- 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 




I /c/^l^v\ City Hal1 

I/O I (£,/ &^3s&a\£\ Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 

, J BOARD of SUPERVISORS L( ^fS^^'B l) San Francisco 94102-4689 

Tel. No. 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 

TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



, NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 

.FINANCE COMMITTEE 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meeting of the Finance Committee scheduled for 
Wednesday, November 21, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, 
Room 263, City Hall, San Francisco, California, has been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV f 9 200] 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Cancelled Meeting Notice/Ad 2/1/01 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 

S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL, ROOM 244 

1 DR. CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-4689 

IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE!!! 



41 Library 

100 Larkin Street Govt Information Center 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell 
Clerk: GailJohnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, November 28, 2001 



10:00 AM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m. 

011665 [Proposed expenditure of California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for Fiscal Year 
2001-02] 

Resolution authorizing adoption of the County Description of Proposed Expenditure of California Healthcare 
for Indigents (CHIP) funds for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and that the President or duly authorized representative of 
the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco can certify the County Description of 
Proposed Expenditure of CHIP funds for the Fiscal Year 2001-02. (Public Health Department) 
1 1/7/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the 
November 21, 2001 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; JeffLeong, Department of Public Health; Ben 
Rosenfield, Mayor's Office. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



01 1905 [Reserved Funds, Department of Human Services] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Human Services (Fiscal Year 2000-01 Budget 
"Homeless Services Coordination", Ordinance 180-00), in the amount of $250,000 to strengthen and improve 
services in the single adult homeless shelters. (Human Services Department) 

(Supervisor Peskin dissenting in Committee) 

10/22/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Michelle Byrd, Department of Public Health; 

James Oselski, CATS; Janet Gorian, Executive Director, CATS. 

Release of reserved fuds in the amount of $191,000 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Maxwell 

Noes: 1 - Peskin 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:08 TM on 3 3(14 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 28, 2001 



011389 [Management Agreement for the North Beach and Vallejo Street Garages] 

Resolution approving the award of the Management Agreement for the North Beach Garage and the Vallejo 
Street Garage to Pacific Park Management Incorporated. (Parking and Traffic Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

7/30/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee. 

8/28/01 , TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

10/10/01 , CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Speakers: None. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ron Szeto, Acting Director, Parking Authority. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



011883 [Prop J Contract, Pacific Park Management, Inc.] 

Resolution approving: (1) The Controller's certification that Employee Parking Management Services for San 
Francisco International Airport can practically be performed by private contractor at a lower cost than if work 
were performed by city employees at budgeted levels, and (2) The contract between Pacific Park Management, 
Inc., and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission, to provide said 
services. (Airport Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

10/16/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

11/7/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, 

Airport. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



011 884 | Airport Operating Agreement] 

Resolution approving the Airport Public Facilities Operating Agreement between Ampco System Parking and 
the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

(Supervisor Peskin dissenting in Committee) 

10/16/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

1 1 /7/01 , CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, 

Airport. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Airport. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Maxwell 

Noes: 1 - Peskin 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:08 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 28, 2001 



011552 [Reserved Funds, Public Utilities Commission - Hetch Hetchy] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Public Utilities Commission - Hetch Hetchy (Fiscal Year 2001-02 
Budget), in the amount of $25 million to fund the purchase of electrical power for resale for the remainder of 
the fiscal year. (Public Utilities Commission) 
1 1/9/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kingsley Okereke, Director of Finance, Public 
Utilities Commission. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $25 million approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 1 1:45 a.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at i:0$ I'M on 3/3/04 



:iTY AND COUNTY 




OF 



SAN 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 

FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: „ Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-1665 



November 21, 2001 

DOCUMENTS DEPT 
NOV 2 8 2001 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 

Item: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Resolution authorizing the adoption of the County 
Description of Proposed Expenditure of California 
Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for Fiscal 
Year 2001-02, and authorizing that the President of the 
Board of Supervisors, or duly authorized representative of 
the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San 
Francisco, can certify the County Description of Proposed 
Expenditure of CHIP funds for FY 2001-02. 

$4,136,456 

California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) 

The State Department of Health Services (DHS) 
established the California Healthcare for Indigents 
Program (CHIP) in 1989 to provide funds to California 
counties to pay for medical services for indigent persons 
who are not eligible for other private or public health care 
programs. CHIP is funded by Proposition 99 (Tobacco 
Tax) money. California counties use CHIP funds to 
reimburse both County and non-County providers for 
uncompensated services for indigent persons who are not 
able to otherwise pay for the cost of such health services. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Proposed 
Expenditures of 
CHIP Funds: 



CHIP funds are used to reimburse (a) participating 
County and non-County hospitals for inpatient, 
outpatient, and emergency services, and (b) participating 
private physicians for emergency, obstetric, and pediatric 
services, provided to indigent persons. 

State regulations require that the County submit to the 
State, on an annual basis, a description of the County's 
proposed expenditures of CHIP funds, and that the 
President of the Board of Supervisors, or duly authorized 
representative, certify the subject expenditure 
description. The proposed resolution would authorize the 
County Description of Proposed Expenditure of the 
subject CHIP funds for FY 2001-02. 



The aUocation of the CHIP funds for FY 2001-02 is as 
follows: 



County Hospital Fund 
Non-County Hospital Fund 
Physician Services Fund 
Other Health Services Fund 
Total CHIP Funds 



$3,374,275 
261,630 
102,245 
398.306 

$4,136,456 



Comments: 



1. As shown in the Attachment provided by the DPH, the 
CHIP allocation by each Fund noted above, is as follows: 

County Hospital Funds 

DPH has allocated $3,374,275 in County Hospital Funds 
for indigent services at San Francisco General Hospital 
(SFGH), including administrative costs, and the Child 
Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) services at 
SFGH. 



SFGH Services 
CHDP Services 
DPH Administrative Costs 

Total County Hospital Fund 



$2,826,909 
118,523 

428.843 

$S 3 S74 ; 275 



• '--RD OF SUPBS7IS ~. 

T5TTT)iimi? r in ) 'r-T 6 T " 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Non-Countv Hospital Fund 



DPH has allocated $261,630 to the Non-County Hospital 
Fund, including $130,815, or 50 percent, to 6 local non- 
County hospitals (California Pacific Medical Center, 
Chinese Hospital, University of Cahfornia at San 
Francisco Medical Center, St. Francis Hospital, St. Luke's 
Hospital, and St. Mary's Hospital), based on the State's 
mandated formula, and 2130,815, or 50 percent, to 
reimburse these local non-County hospitals on a 
discretionary basis. 

State-mandated Funds $130,815 

Discretionary Funds 
Hospital Reimbursement 116,425 

Professional Services Contract* 14.390 

Subtotal Discretionary Funds 130,815 

Total Non-County Hospital Fund $261,630 

* Mr. Jeffrey Leong of DPH states that DPH has an 
existing professional services contract with Lifemark, 
Incorporated, to process medical claims for 
reimbursement from private hospitals and physicians. 

Physician Sendees Fund 

DPH has allocated $102,245 to the Physician Services 
Fund, including $51,123, or 50 percent, to Emergencj' 
Medical Services (EMS), and $51,122, or 50 percent for 

new contracts. 



Emergency Medical Services 






EMS 


$46,011 




Professional Services Contract 


5.112 




Subtotal EMS 




51,123 


New Contracts 






EMS 


13,833 




Child Health and Disability 


32,177 




Prevention (CHDP) 






Professional Services Contract 


5.112 




Subtotal New Contracts 




51.122 


Total : : hysician ? ri ices Fund 




$102,245 






Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Other Health Services Fund 



DPH has allocated $398,306 for other health services, 
including reimbursements for indigent services at SFGH 
and Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) 
services at SFGH, and administrative costs. 

SFGH $325,810 

CHDP 14,273 

DPH Administrative Costs 58.223 

Total Other Health Services Fund $398,306 

2. In September of 2001, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized DPH to accept and expend up to $4,826,945 in 
CHIP funds (File 01-1609). According to Mr. Leong, the 
final total State allocation is $4,136,456, the amount to be 
certified to the State under the proposed subject 
resolution. 

3. The Board of Supervisors approved the total CHIP fund 
expenditure of $4,826,945 in the DPH FY 2001-02 budget. 
The actual amount of $4,136,456 allocated by the State in 
FY 2001-02 is $690,489, or approximately 14.3 percent, 
less than the budgeted amount of $4,826,945. Mr. Leong 
states that the reduction in the State allocation of CHIP 
funds resulted from changes in the California FY 2001-02 
budget that diverted Tobacco Tax funds away from the 
CHIP-funded County services to fund other State health 
programs. Mr. Leong advises that this change in the 
CHIP allocation to the County will be offset by a 
reduction in the amount allocated for CHIP programs and 
will not result in increased General Fund contributions to 
DPH for FY 2001-02. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



Attachment 1 
Pase 1 of 6 



County of San Francisc; 



FY 2001-02 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP/RHS Program Funds 

HOSPITAL SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

COUNTY" HOSPITAL FUNDS 
Revenue 

County Hospital Allocation S 3 ,374,275 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year $. 

Projected Interest for FY 2001-02 S 



Total S 3.-m.?7s 

Appropriations for Services bv Budget Unit 

B udget Unit # HCHCHIPSVCS Title SFGH 2 ,826 .909 

Budget Unit # Tide 

Budget Unit # Tide 



Budget Unit # ' Tide 



Budget Unit # Tide_ 

Budget Unit # Title. 

Budget Unit #____ Tide 



Budget Unit # Title. 

Budget Unit # ■ Titie_ 

Budget Unit # ; Tide. 

Budget Unit #_ Title! 

Budget Unit #_ Title 



Appropriations for Administrative Costs bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIPADMIN Tide CHS 426,525 

Budget Unit w MCSnEJS^MDi Title cf^ for or ops.-:) , ? t. i % 

Budget Unit #__ Tide 



Appropriations for CHD? Treatment Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHI?SVCS Tide SFGH 113,523 

Budget Unit #_ Title 

Budget Unit n_ Title 



iota] S 3. 3'- 

Utiexp ende i ir.teres: will be recurr.ed E 
CHI?/ " ling. 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 6 



„ - San Francisco 
Countv or 



FY 2001-02 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHEP/RHS Program Funds 

HOSPITAL SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

NONCOUNTY HOSPLTAL FORMULA FUNDS 
Revenue 

Noncounty Hospital Formula Allocation $ 130,815 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year S 

Projected Interest for FY 2001-02 ■ $ 



Total : $ nn.flis 

Appropriations for Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCH~PSVCS Title Medical Svcs . Cts ■ no, 81 s 

Budget Unit # Title [ ■ 

Budget Unit #____ Title 



Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Unit #_ Title 



Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Urut # Title 



Budget Urut # Title, 

Budset Unit = Title 



Budget Unit # Title, 



rotal 3 130,81: 



•eturnci to Che State legislation extends the 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 6 



County of San Francisco 



FY 2001-02 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHEP/RHS Program Funds 

HOSPITAL SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

NONCOUNTY HOSPITAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDS 
Revenue 

Noncounty Hospiial Discretionary Allocation •- $ 130,81: 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year S 

Projected Interest for FY 200 1-02 S 



Total ..." S I30 - 315 

Appropriations for Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # ECHCHIPSVCS Title Medical Svcs ■ Ccs. 1 16.A7S 

Budget Unit # : Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

BudsetUnit# Title ___, 



Budget Unit # Title. 

Budset Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # iitle_ 

Budget Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # ■ Title. 

Budget Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # Title_ 

Budget Unit # Title 



Appropriations for CHjjP Treatment Services bv Budget Unit 
Budget Unit # Title 



P, 



UQset Ui 



1 Unit # _ 



Appropriations for Administrative Costs bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCECHIPSVCS Title Professional Svcs. 14,290 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title ___ _ 



• 3 120 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 6 

County of San Francisco 

FY 2001-02 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHTP/RHS Program Funds 

PHYSICIAN SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

PHYSICIAN SERVICES - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) FUNDS 
Revenue 

Physician Services - EMS Allocation $ 51,123 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year $ 

Projected Interest for FY 2001-02 S 



Total $ 51,123 

Aooro cri ad ons for Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHI?SVCS Title Medical Svcs. Cts. cf, .01 i 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Tide 



Budget Unit # Tide_ 

Budget Unit # Tide_ 

Budget Unit # Title. 

Budget Unit #_ Title_ 

Budget Unit # Tide_ 

Budget Unit #. Tide_ 

Budget Unit #_ Tide, 

Budget Unit # Tide 



Budget Unit # Tide_ 

Budget Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # Title, 

Budget Unit #_ Title_ 

Budget Unit # Title 



Appropriations for Administradve Costs bv Budget Unit ( n o; to exceed 10% of the Physician Services Account) 
o-et Unit =_^r CH ^?SVCS "H-J £ Professional Svcs. 5,112 

Tide 

<r 51,123 
lass legislation extends Che 



Attachment I 
Page 5 of 6 



County of San Francisco 



FY 2001-02 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHTP/RHS Program Funds 

PHYSICIAN SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

PHYSICIAN SERVICES - NEW CONTRACT FUNDS 
Revenue 

Physician Services - New Contract Allocation S 51 ,122 

(Not to exceed 50% of the total Physician's Services Account on Table 1 for CHIP counties) 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year S 

Projected Interest for FY 200 1-02 $ 



Total $ 51,122 

Appropriations for Obstetric Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit #_ Title : ' 

Budget Unit #. Title 



Appropriations for Pediatric Services bv Budget Unit 
Budget Unit #_ Title 



Budget Unit #_____ Title. 

Budget Unit # Title 



Budget Unit # Title 



Appropriations for Emergency Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIPSVCS Title Medical Svcs. Cts. ■_ 13,831 

Budget Unit #_ Title 

Budget Unit #_ Title 



Budget Unit # Title 



Appropriations for CHOP Treatment Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit ^cnrxTD^yrs, Title m^i>?i Vs. rr= ~n i 77 

Budget Unit # Tide 



Appropriations for Administrative Costs bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIPSVCS j[^ e Professional Svcs. 5 ,. 1 1 2 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit #____ Title 



Total : 



[nexpenced interes 
fcHIP/2ES I a 



Attachment I 
Page 6 of 6 

County of San Francisco 

FY 2001-02 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP/RHS Program Funds 

OTHER HEALTH SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

Revenue 

Other Health Services Allocation S 398,306 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year S 

ProjectedInterestforFY2001-02 S 



Total ; $ 398,306 

Appropriations for Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIPSVCS Title SFGH 325,810 

Budget Unit # Title ; 

Budget Unit #_ Tide ' • 



Budget Unit # Title_ 

Budget Unit #_ Titie_ 

Budget Unit # __ Title 



Budget Unit # Tide_ 

Budget Unit # . Tide_ 

Budget Unit #_ Tide 



Appropriations for Administrative Costs bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHr.HTPsvrs Tide chs fovp.rheacn . . sr.?7? 

Budget Unit #. Tide 

Budget Unit # Tide ' 



Appropriations for Equipment bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit #. Title 

Budget Unit # Tide 

Budget Unit # Tide 



Appropriations for CHDP Treatment Services bv Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # hchceipsvcs __ Title 'SFGH 1.4,273 

Budget Unit #__ Tide 

Budget Unit # Title 

Total $ 39S-3 06 



UnexT returned to the State cvilsss Legisla 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 2- File 01-1905 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Human Services 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $250,000 to strengthen and improve services in 
the City-funded single adult homeless shelters. 

$250,000 

General Fund monies reserved in the Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001 Department of Human Services (DHS) budget. 

During the FY 2000-2001 budget hearings, the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated and placed on reserve, 
$250,000 in the DHS budget for homeless services 
coordination pending recommendations by the Local 
Homeless Advisory Board on how to strengthen and 
improve homeless services at the City's seven single adult 
homeless shelters. In November of 2000, the Local 
Homeless Advisory Board, a 34 member board of which 15 
are appointed by the Mayor, 11 are appointed by the 
Board of Supervisors and 8 are Department Heads, in 
collaboration with staff of City-funded homeless shelters, 
issued preliminary recommendations for improvements to 
homeless services. According to Ms. Michele Byrd of 
DHS, the DHS did not review or act upon those 
recommendations in FY 2000-2001 because DHS was in 
the process of reorganizing the programs and services 
offered at two of the City's seven single adult homeless 
shelters, the Multi-Service Center South and Next Door 
(formerly the Multi-Service Center North). 

Ms. Byrd states that DHS and the Local Homeless 
Advisory Board are currently in agreement that the 
$250,000 m reserved funds should be expended for (a) 
capital improvement to single adult homeless shelter 
facilities in order to improve the living environments, and 
(b) staff training and development. The reserved funds in 
the amount of $250,000 would be used to pay for (a) 
capital improvements at five of the seven City-funded 
single adult homeless shelters at a total estimated cost of 
$170,000, (b) training sessions for staff at all seven 
shelters at an estimated total cost of $21,000, and (c) a 

BOA?.D OF SUPERVISC 

BUDGET ANALYST 

i ] 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

consultant to develop a staff training manual at an 
estimated total cost of $59,000. 

Budget: A summary budget for (a) capital improvements at five of 

the seven City-funded single adult homeless shelters at a 
total cost of $170,000, (b) staff training at a total cost of 
$21,000, and (c) a consultant to develop a staff training 
manual at a total cost of $59,000 is as follows: 

Estimated 

Shelters to Receive Capital Improvements Costs 

A Man's Place $20,200 

A Woman's Place 43, 100 

Central City Hospitality House 55,478 

Dolores Street 24,000 

Episcopal Sanctuary 27,222 

Sub total- Capital Improvements $170,000 

Training 

Training for City- Funded Single Adult 
Homeless Shelters (for all of the five 
shelters cited above and for the Multi- 
Service Center South shelter and the 
Next Door shelter) $21,000 

$3,000 x 7 shelters (see Comment No. 2) 

Consultant to Develop Training Manual 

(see Comment No. 4) 59,000 

Subtotal-Staff Training $80,000 

Total-Capital Improvements and 

Training $250,000 

Attachment I, provided by DHS, provides additional 
budget details for the summary budget shown above. 

Comments: 1. Each of the seven City-funded shelters, as listed in 

Attachment II, is operated by a nonprofit agency under 
contract with the City. Ms. Byrd reports that DHS would 
amend its existing contracts with each of the seven 
nonprofit agencies that operate the seven single adult 
homeless shelters to include these one-time funds in FY 
2001-2002 only. According to Ms. Byrd, the $250,000 in 
reserved funds would be expended by June 30, 2002. Ms. 
Byrd reports that the five shelters to receive funds for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET &NAL 
12 






Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



both capital improvements and training are: A Man's 
Place and A Woman's Place, which are both operated by 
Community Awareness and Treatment Services, the 
Central City Hospitality House, which is operated by the 
Central City Hospitality House, the Dolores Street 
Shelter, which is operated by Dolores Street Community 
Services, and the Episcopal Sanctuary Shelter, which is 
operated by Episcopal Community Services. Ms. Byrd 
further advises that the Multi-Service Center South, 
which is operated by St. Vincent de Paul and Next Door, 
which is operated by Episcopal Communny Services, 
would receive training funds only. 

2. Each of the seven City-funded single adult homeless 
shelters would receive $3,000 for a total of $21,000 in one- 
time funds for staff training. According to Ms Byrd. staff 
training in the following five areas at all of the seven 
City-funded shelters is requested as part of the release of 
reserves: (1) customer service; (2) substance abuse; (3) 
mental health; (4) coping with learning disabilities; and 
(5) cultural diversity. Ms. Byrd states that the training is 
intended to improve services for the shelter's clients. All 
Shelter Monitor staff, Case Managers and Supervisors at 
each of the seven City-funded shelters would attend 
training sessions at a cost of $3,000 per shelter. According 
to Ms. Byrd, the shelters usually select their own trainers. 
However Ms. Byrd advises that DHS will work with the 
seven shelters in order to ensure that all shelter staff 
have access to appropriate and comprehensive training 
from the same trainer. 

3. Ms. Byrd advises that because the nonprofits are 
required to submit invoices for payment for all capital 
improvements and training costs, DHS would be able to 
monitor the expenditure of such one-time funds for their 
intended purposes. Ms Byrd further states that each of 
the five shelters to receive funds for capital improvements 
as outlined in Attachment I would obtain contractors 
through a competitive bid process for the capital 
improvements. 

4. The $59,000 budgeted for a training manual to use for 
future training will f and 
analyze appropriate r : 

BOARD OF SUPEP 

BUDGET ANA! 

l 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

comprehensive training manual for use in all of the seven 
City-funded single adult homeless shelters. According to 
Ms. Byrd, because this project is estimated to require 
approximately 600 hours and the average rate for a 
consultant ranges from $80 to $120 per hour, DHS has 
budgeted $59,000 for the project. Ms. Byrd further reports 
that DHS has not yet selected the consultant to develop 
the training manual for the shelters through a Request 
for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Therefore, the Budget 
Analyst recommends that the $59,000 for a consultant 
continue to be reserved pending contractor selection and 
submission of budget details. 

Recommendations: 1. Approve the release of $191,000 of reserved funds out 

of the requested $250,000, including $170,000 for capital 
improvements and $21,000 for training. 

2. Continue to reserve $59,000 pending the completion of 
the RFQ process including consultant selection and 
submission of budget details for a consultant to develop a 
training manual as discussed in Comment No. 4. 






Attachment I 
Page 1 of 5 



Community Awareness & Treatment Services, Inc. 
Capital needs for year 2001-2002 



A Man's Place 

Outside Doors - by patio - old and hard to shut 
Men's toilet, install commercial units 
Vents in men's room, need to install 
Ventilation system in sleeping area 
Total 



(Estimate) 

2,500 
5,700 
3,500 
8,500 
20.200 



A Woman's Place 



ADA Front Door Ramp 

Front Doors - also for ADA compliance 

Roof Patio repair 

In Bathroom, dressing area - wall damage 

Shower stalls replace stall dividers 

Front window tinting 

Replace window covering - shades 

Security system - replacement 

Front lobby desk replace 

Dorm door needs replacement 

Total 



18,000 
8,000 
1,000 
4,500 
3,500 
1,500 
3,500 
1,500 
1,000 
600 

43.100 



1 1 -■ 1 4 -• 2 1 WED 23:42 FAX 413 358 2S34 DHS Homeless Programs tgjOC 

Attachment I 
Page 2 of 5 



Central City Hospitality House 
Capital Needs Request 

Repair Shelter Entry Stairs 533,138 

Replace Cabinets in living area of shelter S 5,964 

New ventilation in showers $ 4,500 

Repair janitor's closet S 4,636 

Replace linen closet $ 1,334 

Paint inside of shelter S 2,406 

Replace Iron Gate S 3.500 

TOTAL 555,478 



1 1 • 1 4 •' 2 1 \<"ED 23:42 FAX 415 35S 2334 DHS Homeless Programs ©001 

Attachment I 
Page 3 of 5 



Dolores Street Community Services 
Capital Needs Request 



Install new showers and repair existing showers §20,000 

New commercial refrigerator $ 4.000 

Total $24,000 






11/14/2001 «'ZD 23:42 FAX 415 55S 2834 DHS Homeless Programs @005 

Attachment I 
Page 4 of 5 



THE SANCTUARY WISH LIST 

1 . 75 sheets plywood to put under half of the beds. We have plywood in some of the 
beds on each floor. Some clients feel the spring bunks are way too soft and want 
plywood but we do not have enough beds fixed that way. 

75 sheets @ $22.99 per sheet + tax $1,867.00 

2. New partitions for the men's floor Bathrooms. The existing ones are rusted and falling 
apart. 

Partitions for 12 toilet stalls and 7 shower stalls 
$16,780.00 

3. Currently there is no antenna for the televisions. Reception is extremely poor. We 
have TV's two rooms one each floor 

TV antenna and antenna wiring plus installation $2,700.00 

4. We currently have only overhead lighting in the women's lounges. They would like 
smaller floor lamps as well. We would like more framed pictures or posters to put in 
the dorms. 

Lamps & pictures $500.00 

5. Our large commercial refrigerator died a year ago. We have been using small, older, 
donated residential refrigerators. These are less efficient for space and cost 
significantly more to use. 

Commercial refrigerator $4,222.00 

6. The women's floor has been repainted. We have not been able to do the men's floor. 
We need 20 gallons of paint to complete the project. 

20 gallons of latex enamel $341.00 

7. There are 3 windows on the men's floor that are fogged and damaged. We have not 
been able to replace these with regular glass that you can see out of. 

3 Large glass windows with installation $812.00 






Attachment I 
Page 5 of 5 

Estimated Training Budget 



Training S2 1,000 

The rates for training sessions range from S350 to S500 per session depending on the 
number of individuals per session and the number of topics covered. The shelters have 
selected the following topics Customer Service, Substance Abuse, Mental Health, Coping 
with Learning Disabilities and Cultural Diversity. Since each of the shelters staffing 
configurations differ, it will be at the discretion of each shelter to determine how the 
training session will look. Each shelter will be allowed S3000 to cover their training 
needs. (S3000 x 7 Shelters = S2 1,000) 



Consultant $59,000 

The average rate for a consultant ranges from S80 to S120 an hour. We anticipate that it 
will take the consultant approximately 600 hours to do the research and analysis to 
produce the training manual. In order to cover the costs for consultant we are allocating 
S59,000 

The consultant will be responsible for developing a comprehensive training manual that 
all the shelters can use to train their staff. Currently the individual shelters provide 
training to staff that is not consistent. The consultant will be responsible for reviewing , 
analyzing and researching the different training curriculum used in the shelters and other 
training curriculum that is available to develop a universal training manual that all the 
shelters will use. The end product of the training manual will be turned over to us and we 
will have the responsibility of reproducing the manual, since it is likely that we will be 
able to reproduce the manual at a lower price. This manual will be used by all shelters to 
train staff. As new training topics are developed and provided, the curriculum will be 
added to the manual. 

This selection of the consultant will be through a competitive bid process, Request for 
Qualifications, to allow us to select the most qualified consultant. 



TOTAL TRAINING BUDGET S80 5 000 



Attachment II 



Single Adult Homeless Shelters 



A Woman's Place - 90 beds 
1049 Howard Street 

A Man's Place - 1 19 beds 
399 Fremont Street 

Central City Hospitality House - 30 beds 
146 Leavenworth Street 

Dolores Street - 100 beds 
938 Valencia Street 

Episcopal Sanctuary - 250 beds 
201 S ,h Street 

Multi-Service Center South - 380 beds 
525 5 th Street 



Next Door (formerly Multi-Service Center North) - 280 beds 
1001 Polk Street 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 01-1389 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
October 10, 2001. 

Departments: Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Real Estate Division 

Item: Resolution approving the award by the Department of 

Parking and Traffic of a management agreement for the 
City-owned Vallejo Street Garage and the new City- 
owned North Beach Garage to Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated. 

Location: The Vallejo Street garage is located at 766 Vallejo Street 

between Powell and Stockton Streets. The new North 
Beach Garage is located at 735 Vallejo Street between 
Powell and Stockton Streets, across the street from the 
Vallejo Street Garage. 

Purpose of Management 

Agreement: To provide for the operation and maintenance of the 

Vallejo Street Garage and the new North Beach Garage, 
two City-owned parking garages, with a combined total of 
330 parking spaces. The Vallejo Street Garage has 127 1 
parking spaces, which is approximately 38.5 percent of 
the total parking spaces. The new North Beach Garage 
w T ill have 203 parking spaces, or 61.5 percent of the total 
parking spaces. 

Description: The proposed resolution would award the management 

agreement for the Vallejo Street Garage and the new 
North Beach Garage, two of the 18 City-owned parking 
garages, to Pacific Park Management Incorporated. 

Vallejo Street Garage 

The Vallejo Street Garage is open to the public seven daj r s 
per week for 24 hours per day. Upon completion of the 
new North Beach Garage, the Vallejo Street Garage will 



1 Although the Vallejo Street Garage has a total of 162 parking spaces, the proposed management 
agreement would apply to only 127 parking spaces. The City's Police Department occupies the 
remaining 35 parking spaces with its emergency vehicles because of the close proximity of the 
VaDej : :>hce Station, located at 766 Vallejo Street, to the Vallejo Street Garage. There is no 

formal agreement between DPT and the Pohce Department regarding this arrangement for 35 
parkin p 

Board of Supervisors 
udgetAn 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



be open 12 hours per da} 7 . Sunday through Thursday from 
10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 16 hours per day, Friday and 
Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. According to Mr. Steven 
Lee of DPT, the North Beach Garage is anticipated to be 
open for operations on January 1, 2002. Currently, the 
Vallejo Street Garage is managed by the City Parking 
Company under a month-to-month holdover provision of a 
five-3 r ear management agreement that commenced on 
September 1, 1993 and expired on August 31, 1998. 
According to Mr. Lee, the existing management 
agreement has been held over on a month-to-month basis 
since August 31, 1998 because DPT was waiting to enter 
into a new management agreement for both the Vallejo 
Street Garage and the new North Beach Garage upon the 
completion of the new North Beach Garage. 

North Beach Garage 

The old North Beach Garage, built in 1919 with 82 
parking spaces, was demolished in 1998 to build a new, 
larger parking garage. As noted above, Mr. Lee reports 
that DPT anticipates that construction of the new North 
Beach Garage will be completed and the garage will be 
open to the public by January 1, 2002. According to 
Attachment I, provided by DPT, the total project costs to 
build the new North Beach Garage were $13,952,276. 
Attachment I shows the sources and uses of the total 
estimated project costs of $13,952,276 as well as a debt 
service schedule for $8,185,000 in proceeds from the 
Series 2000 bonds at an average interest rate of 5.418 
percent. Of the $8,185,000 in proceeds from the Series 
2000 bonds, $6,505,183 has been used for project costs. 
The remaining $1,679,817 has been used for the debt 
service reserve fund, capitalized interest, underwriters 
discount and the cost of issuance. In addition to the 
56,505,183 in net Series 2000 bond proceeds, the funding 
sources for the North Beach Garage includes $5,418,499 
from DPT's Parking Revenue Fund and $2,028,594 in 
Series 1994 bonds. 2 The new North Beach Garage will be 
open to the public seven days per week for 24 hours per 
day. 



2 Mr. Lee advises that the r—ies 1994 bonds in the ancur. 00.000 in 

Meter Revenue Eonds it rious garage projects. ? i - Series 

1S94 bonds. 

■ 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Amount Payable by 
The City to Pacific 
Park Management 
Incorporated: 



Management Fee 

Under the proposed management agreement, the City 
would pay Pacific Park Management Incorporated a fixed 
management fee of $37,762.76 per month which is 
$453, 144 3 for calendar year 2002 and each subsequent 
year of the proposed three-year management agreement, 
to operate and maintain the two garages. This fixed 
management fee of $453,144 is 22 percent of total 
estimated annual gross revenues of $2,058, 193 4 for both 
garages. As shown in Attachment II, provided by DPT, 
the management fee for the Vallejo Street Garage is 
$181,258 and the management fee for the new North 
Beach Garage is $271,886 for calendar year 2002 and 
each subsequent year of the proposed three-year 
management agreement. 

Proprietary Expenses 

As shown in Attachment II, the City would also pay 
Pacific Park Management Incorporated proprietary 
expenses of an estimated $6,125 per month or $73,500 for 
calendar year 2002 and each subsequent year of the 
proposed three-j r ear management agreement. Section 2.33 
of the proposed management agreement defines 
proprietary expenses as "...all capital expenditures, all 
electricity billings and all insurance and bond premiums 
specifically approved by the Director [of the Parking 
Authority] as a proprietary expense. " Insurance consists of 
property insurance, business interruption insurance, and 
boiler and machinery insurance. According to Section 10.7 
of the proposed management agreement, "All Proprietary 
Expenses shall be the obligation of the City." Of the 
estimated $73,500 payable for proprietary expenses for 



3 Rounded from $453,153.12. 

4 In the Budget Analyst's report on this file issued for the October 10, 2001 Finance Committee 
meeting, the Budget Analyst based the fiscal impact analysis on "target revenues" of $2,200,000. 
Since the October 10, 2001 meeting, DPT has informed the Budget Analyst that the estimated 
annual gross revenue is $2,05S,193, which is $141,807 or 6.9 percent less than the target revenues of 
$2,200,000. Therefore, for the purposes of this report for the November 28, 2001 Finance Committee 
meeting, the Budget Analyst has based the fiscal impact analysis on DPTs estimated annual gross 
revenues of $2,058,193. 



3oa?.d of Supervisor 3 

•ALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

calendar year 2002 and each subsequent year of the 
proposed three-year management agreement, $33,500 will 
be paid for the Vallejo Street Garage and $40,000 will be 
paid for the new North Beach Garage. As explained in a 
memorandum of October 1, 2001 from Mr. Lee 
(Attachment III), DPT does not anticipate a change in 
proprietary expenses over the three-year term of the 
proposed management agreement because (a) DPT has 
accounted for the potential fluctuation in the market price 
of electricity in the estimated proprietary expenses and 
(b) DPT does not foresee an increase in the actual 
insurance costs for the Vallejo Street Garage and the 
anticipated insurance costs for the new North Beach 
Garage. 

Total Estimated Amount to be Paid Each Year bv the City 
to Pacific Park Management 

The City would pay Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated an estimated $526,644 for calendar year 
2002 and each subsequent year of the proposed three-year 
management agreement to manage the two garages, 
including $453,144 for the fixed management fee and an 
estimated $73,500 in proprietary expenses. 

Estimated Annual 

Gross Revenues 5 : Approximately $2,058,193 in calendar year 2002 and each 

subsequent year of the proposed three-year management 
agreement. As stated by Mr. Lee in Attachment III, DPT 
estimates the same amount of $2,058,193 in gross 
revenues in 2003 and 2004 because "Given the current 
downturn in the economy, we were conservative and don't 
anticipate growth for the term of the Management 
Agreement." As shown in Attachment II, the Vallejo 
Street Garage is anticipated to generate an estimated 
$823,277 per year in gross parking revenues and the 
North Beach Garage is anticipated to generate an 
estimated $1,234,916 per year in gross parking revenues. 

Estimated Annual Net 

Income to the City 6 : $1,531,549 ($608,519 from j : Street Garage and 

$923,030 from the Nor year 



5 Gross revenues equal § jipta less Parking Taxes 

G Net income to the City eq . : . p'oss revenues less mans 

.Board of £ 

Budget - 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

2002 and each subsequent year of the proposed three-year 
management agreement based on an estimated 
$2,058,193 in gross receipts less $453,144 for the fixed 
management fee and less $73,500 for estimated 
proprietary expenses. Anticipated annual net income to 
the City, as shown in Attachment II, does not consider 
annual debt service for the new North Beach Garage of 
$427,110 in calendar year 2002, $664,760 in calendar year 

2003 and $664,610 in calendar year 2004. When this 
annual debt service is taken into account, the estimated 
annual net income to the City becomes $1,104,439 
($1,531,549 less $427,110) in calendar year 2002, 
$866,789 ($1,531,549 less $664,760) in calendar year 2003 
and $866,939 ($1,531,549 less 5664,610) in calendar year 
2004. As shown in Attachment I, debt service for the 
Series 2000 bonds for North Beach Garage will be paid off 
by June 15, 2022. Mr. Lee reports that debt service for the 
Series 1994 bonds for various garage projects will be 
repaid by parking meter revenues by June 1, 2020. There 
is no debt service on the Vallejo Street Garage, according 
to Mr. Lee. 

Incentive Fee: As noted above, annual gross revenues are anticipated to 

total $2,058,193 in calendar year 2002 and each 
subsequent year of the proposed three-year management 
agreement. According to Mr. Lee, target gross revenues 
are $2,200,000, which is $141,807 or 6.9 percent more 
than the estimated annual gross revenues of $2,058,193. 
Attachment V, provided by DPT, shows how the 
$2,058,193 in estimated annual gross revenues and the 
$2,200,000 in target gross revenues were calculated. If 
annual gross revenues exceed target gross revenues of 
$2,200,000, then, in addition to the fixed management fee 
of $453,144 and the estimated proprietary expenses of 
$73,500, the City would also pay Pacific Park 
Management Incorporated 15 percent of gross revenues 
exceeding $2,200,000. If annual gross revenues exceed 
$2,400,000, then the City would pay Pacific Park 
Management Incorporated 20 percent of gross revenues 
exceeding $2,400,000. He vevei b! - payable 

to Pacific Park Mar not 

exceed $100,000 for ar :hree- 

year management agi = 



Board of Super ' 

Ex 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Term of Agreement: Three years commencing on the opening of the new North 
Beach Garage, anticipated to be January 1, 2002, and 
expiring on December 31, 2004. The term of the proposed 
management agreement could be extended annually for 
two additional years upon mutual written agreement 
between the Director of the Parking Authority and Pacific 
Park Management Incorporated. Upon the expiration of 
the second one-year extension, the management 
agreement may be further extended on a month-to-month 
basis. According to Section 4.3 of the proposed 
management agreement, "Any holding over after the 
expiration of the initial term or either extension shall 
extend this Management Agreement on a month-to-month 
basis. Such holding over period shall be on the same terms 
and conditions of this Management Agreement and the 
Management Fee paid to Management shall be at the rate 
in effect during the most recently expired term. Any such 
period beyond twelve months must be approved by the 
[Parking and Traffic] Commission." In accordance with 
the Budget Analyst's prior recommendation included in 
his report of October 10, 2001 to the Finance Committee, 
DPT has amended the proposed management agreement 
to require Board of Supervisors approval to extend the 
agreement on a month-to-month basis for any such period 
beyond the initial 12 months of a month-to-month 
extension (see Comment No. 6). 

According to Section 17.1 of the proposed management 
agreement, the termination provisions are as follows: "No 
sooner than eighteen (18) months after the commencement 
date of this Management Agreement, the Director [of the 
Parking Authority] shall have the right to terminate this 
Management Agreement, with or without cause, by 
providing at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior 
written notice to the Manager of the City's election. 
Termination shall be effective upon the expiration of the 6- 
month notice period or at such later date as is specified in 
the notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director [of 
the Parking Authority] shall hove the right to terminate 
y this. Mane \ Agreeme; \ :■■ Event 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Capital Improvement 

Costs: Capital improvement costs are estimated at $250,000 for 

the Vallejo Street Garage, of which Pacific Park 
Management Incorporated is required to pay the first 
$50,000 and DPT would pay an estimated $200,000. 
According to Section 8.2 of the proposed management 
agreement, "Manager shall complete the capital 
improvements within twelve (12) months of the date hereof 
unless the Director grants a written extension. The 
estimated cost of such capital improvements is 
approximately $250,000, hovjever, no assurance can be 
given that such capital improvements will not exceed the 
estimated cost. Notwithstanding anything in this 
Management Agreement to the contrary, the costs and 
expenses incurred by Manager in the performance by it of 
the obligations set forth in this Section shall be paid as 
follows: the first $50,000 shall be deemed to be an 
'Operating Expense' with the balance deemed a 
'Proprietary Expense' under this Management .Agreement." 
In accordance with the Budget Analyst's prior 
recommendation included in his report of October 10, 
2001 to the Finance Committee, DPT has amended the 
proposed management agreement to require that capital 
improvement costs cannot exceed $250,000 over the three- 
year term of the agreement without first obtaining prior 
approval of the Board of Supervisors (see Comment No. 
6). 

Capital improvements include retrofitting the existing 
lighting system, restriping and painting the interior of the 
garage and waterproofing the roof and 4 th floor levels. Mr. 
Lee advises that there will be no additional capital 
improvement costs for the new North Beach Garage. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Charles Sullivan of the City 

Attorney's Office, the inclusion of a provision which 
authorizes the Director of the Parking Authority to make 
certain modifications, changes, or additions to the 
management agreement, subsequ^ le approval of 

this proposed legislation by sors, 

without further approval frorci :ors. 

is standard language 
agreements. Mr. Sullivan 
ended to allow the 

Board of Supe : 

Budget A: ; 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



make non-substantive changes to the proposed 
management agreement, upon consultation with the City 
Attorney, without the need for additional approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

2. As previously noted, the Vallejo Street Garage is 
currently operated by City Parking Company under a 
month-to-month holdover provision of a five-year 
management agreement that expired on August 31. 1998. 
Under the provisions of the existing management 
agreement, the City pays to the City Parking Company a 
management fee of 32.7 percent of gross revenues 
generated by the operation of the Vallejo Street Garage. 
Attachment II shows the amount paid to the City Parking 
Company in calendar years 1999 and 2000, and the 
anticipated amount to be paid to the City Parking 
Company in calendar year 2001. In calendar year 2001 
under the existing management agreement, the 
management fee is estimated to be $316,204 or 32.7 
percent of gross revenues and the proprietary expenses 
are estimated at $230,000 or 23.8 percent of gross 
revenues. The total estimated amount payable to City 
Parking Company for calendar year 2001 including the 
management fee and proprietary expenses is an 
estimated $546,204 or 56.5 percent of gross revenues for 
managing the Vallejo Street Garage. 

As previously noted, under the proposed management 
agreement, the City would pay Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated in calendar year 2002 and each subsequent 
year of the proposed three-year management agreement a 
fixed management fee rather than a percentage of gross 
revenues. The fixed management fee of $453,144, results 
in Pacific Park Management Incorporated receiving 22 
percent of the estimated annual gross revenues of 
$2,058,193 to manage both the Vallejo Street Garage and 
the new North Beach Garage. The City would also pay to 
Pacific Park Management Incorporated an estimated 
$73,500 annually for proprietary expenses in calendar 
year 2002 and each subsequent year of the proposed 
three-year management agre be 

approximately 3.6 percent r .oss 

revenues. This total estim of 

$526,644 ($453,144 plus 002 

Board of SuPEP.vir 
Budget Ana . 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



and each subsequent year of the proposed three-year 
management agreement to manage both the Vallejo 
Street Garage and the new North Beach Garage is 
approximately 25.6 percent of the estimated annual gross 
revenues of $2,058,193 and is §19,560 or 3.6 percent less 
than the §546,204 in management fees and proprietary 
expenses that the City is projected to pay to City Parking 
Company in calendar year 2001 just to manage one 
garage, the Vallejo Street Garage. 

3. As shown in Attachment II, in calendar year 2001 
under the existing management agreement, the Vallejo 
Street Garage is projected to generate net income to the 
City of 3420,780. In calendar year 2002 and each 
subsequent year of the proposed three-year management 
agreement, the Vallejo Street Garage is projected to 
generate net income to the City of 3608,519 under the 
proposed management agreement, which is $187,739 or 
44.6 percent more than the 3420,780 projected to be 
generated in calendar year 2001 under the existing 
agreement. According to Mr. Lee, this projected increase 
in net income to the City results because under the 
proposed management agreement, DPT will keep all 
parking revenues and pay the parking operator a fixed 
management fee to operate the Vallejo Street Garage 
instead of paying a management fee based on a 
percentage of the gross parking revenues that is currently 
being paid under the existing management agreement. 
The Budget Analyst recommended such fixed 
management fee arrangements in our 1993 management 
audit of City-owned garages. 

Mr. Lee explains in a November 20, 2001 memorandum to 
the Budget Analyst (Attachment VI) that the anticipated 
decrease in annual gross revenues generated by the 
Vallejo Street Garage under the proposed management 
agreement as compared to gross revenues generated 
under the existing management agreement is due to the 
loss of revenue from valet services. In addition, under the 
existing management agreement, proprietary expenses 
include valet services and expenses related to 24-hour 
operations, which will both cease hen ." North 

Beach Garage opens. As the 

Description Section of this rach 

Board of Super 

LYS 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Garage closed in 1998. Under the proposed management 
agreement, the Vallejo Street Garage will operate seven 
days per week for 12 hours per day, Sunday through 
Thursday from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 16 hours per day, 
Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. The new 
North Beach Garage will be open seven days per week for 
24 hours per day. Mr. Lee reports in Attachment TV that 
"We (DPT) anticipate that keeping one of the two garages 
open 24 hours would be sufficient to meet the parking 
demand during the after hours." Mr. Lee advises that 
Section 5.2 of the proposed management agreement does 
include provisions to allow for additional services, which 
could include valet services, extended operating hours or 
additional personnel to be provided at the Vallejo Street 
and/or North Beach Garages. According to Mr. Lee, 
compensation for such additional services would be at cost 
plus ten percent of the actual labor costs as stated in 
Section 5.2 of the proposed management agreement. 

4. According to Mr. Jerry Romani of the Real Estate 
Division, on March 3, 2001, the Real Estate Division 
(RED), on behalf of DPT, issued an Invitation for Bids to 
200 parking companies for the management of the Vallejo 
Street Garage and the North Beach Garage. Attachment 
VII, provided by DPT, lists the 17 firms that requested 
bid packages from RED, the 11 firms that submitted pre- 
qualification questionnaires and the eight firms that 
submitted bids which were received by RED on June 15, 
2001. 

The bid amounts represent the monthly fixed 
management fee payable by DPT to the parking operator. 
As noted in Attachment VII, Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated submitted the lowest monthly management 
fee bid of $33,986.48 after their original bid of $37,762.76 
was adjusted by the Human Rights Commission by 10 
percent since Pacific Park Management Incorporated is a 
locally-owned minority business enterprise (LBE/MBE) 
firm. According to Mr. Lee : the Human Rights 
Commission evaluated only the three lowest bids 
submitted. Therefore, Mr. Lee advises that the bids from 
the other five parking operator firms were listed as "not in 
contention" in Attachment VII. Mr. Lee further advises 
that the lowest bid was from PPS Parking, a firm that 
was "not certified" as a locally-owned minority business 
Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



enterprise (LBE/MBE) firm by the Human Rights 
Commission, as shown in Attachment VII. Therefore, the 
bid of PPS Parking of $35,000 was higher than the 
adjusted bid of $33,986.48 for Pacific Park Management 
Incorporated. 

5. Attachment VIII, provided by DPT, lists the parking 
rates at the Vallejo Street Garage and the new North 
Beach Garage as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors on June 4, 2001 (File 01-0868). Mr. Lee notes 
that these parking rates have been in effect for the Vallejo 
Street Garage since September 1, 2000, prior to approval 
by the Board of Supervisors. 7 Mr. Lee reports that the 
parking rates for the new North Beach Garage will 
become effective when the garage begins operations which 
is anticipated to be on January 1, 2002. 

6. The Parking and Traffic Commission has amended the 
subject management agreement to reflect the following 
two prior recommendations of the Budget Analyst 
previously made in his October 10, 2001 report to the 
Finance Committee: (a) In accordance with the Term of 
Agreement Section of this report, amend the subject 
management agreement by adding a provision which 
requires Board of Supervisors approval prior to the 
Parking and Traffic Commission and Pacific Park 
Management Incorporated agreeing to extend the 
management agreement on a month-to-month basis for 
any period beyond 12 months, and (b) In accordance with 
the Capital Improvement Costs Section of this report, 
amend the subject management agreement by adding a 
provision that capital improvement costs cannot exceed 
$250,000 over the three-year term of the management 
agreement without first obtaining prior approval of the 
Board of Supervisors. 

7. In an October 12, 2001 memorandum to the Budget 
Analyst (Attachment IV), Mr. Lee has responded to 
various inquiries made by the Budget Analyst. 



7 In accordance with Section 11 .14 of the Administrative nission 

can establish parking rate; i ; "Jity-owned parking facdlitie 

days, without first obtaii oval of the Board of Suj - 

Board of Supe * 
Budget ANi 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

8. Mr. Lee responds in Attachment IV to concerns of the 
Budget Analyst that the subject management agreement 
should be amended to increase the incentive fee threshold 
for years two and three if gross revenues exceed 
82,200,000. According to Mr. Lee, "The operators 
submitted bids that were based on the $2,200,000 Target 
Revenue... We (DPT) understand your concerns for not 
increasing the Target Revenue annually and setting a 
level above what was achieved in the prior year. We will 
incorporate a percentage annual increase of the Target 
Revenue for future Management Agreements that have 
not already been submitted." 

Recommendations: 1. The Budget Analyst, recommends that the Finance 

Committee direct a letter to DPT advising DPT that the 
Committee expects DPT to commit to negotiating all 
future management agreements so that the initial 
threshold amount for calculation of incentive fees is 
adjusted upward in years two and beyond of the 
management agreements based on the collection of gross 
revenues in excess of the first year's target revenue 
amount. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution. 



Attachment l 
Page 1 ot 2 





w 


m 


T3 


n 


C 




LL, 

o 


13 


Cfi 


U 


y> 
"1 


e, 




Lii 


(0 


X 


in 


h- 


o 


a 


o 

3 


z 







CO 







CD -cf CO 


CD 






ft N- 


O CD 


CN CO O 


CD O CO OD CO O 


CD 






CD CO CO 


N- 






CD Tf 


O CO 


O CO O 


t- O CD h- O O 


h- 






co" co" lo" 


CN 
CN 






O *t 


O CO 


LO CD O 


CO O CD CD r^ o 


CN 


CN CN 


O CD 


"St T- ID 


CD -r- O CD CO LO 


CN 






t- CN o 


LO 






O CO 


CN ft 


-vt co co 


h- CO "=t t- CO CO 


LO 






't oin 


CD_ 






CO CN 


CO 


CD CN 


O CM v_ t- LO CD_ 


°l 




.5 


tf> C\T CD 


co" 




CQ 


t-" 






co" t-" t-" xr" 


co" 


























o 








O 














!- 








h" 
















O CO 


CO 






o 


O 


CN O O 


G) O CO O CO 


h~ 


o P 




O CO 


CO 


DJ 




o 


O 


O O O 


1- O CD O O 


T 


v— c 




O T- 


T 


— 




o 


o_ 


LD 0_ 0_ 


CO_ 0_ CD_ 0_ l^-_ 


UD 


c Q 

LL CD 


c 


o" lo" 


ld" 


3 


c 
g 


CO" 


o" 


^t O" ID 


cd" t-" o" lo" co" 


I--" 


o 


o o 


o 


Q 


CD 


CN 


^ o n 


n n i- o co 


CO 


'SZ 


^T LO 


CD_ 


CN 


CO 


CD CN 


CO CN v- t- LO 


CD 


U 

3 


*-" CD 


h-" 


CO 

CJ 










CO" T-* T~" 


h>T 


^ i— 






















o 3 


5 






3 






















en 












$ ^ 


c 






t; 


c 












CD r- 

£ 5 


o 






c 


o 












O 






03 


O 












3 CL 








Q. 














o x 








X 














CO LU 








LU 
















c 
c 


CO \t 


CO 






■<t N- 


CD 


CO 


03 O 


CJD 


£ 


CD CD 


en 






cd -3- 


CO 


CO 


h~ o 


LD 




"* ^l 


o 






o ««t 


CO 


CD 


CD 0_ 


N-_ 


CO 

■a 

c 
3 


CO 


co" co" 


N-" 


CO 


o 


-st CN 


CD 


t-T 


^-" LO~ 


■<*" 


c 


t- CN 


■>* 


O 


o 


O CO 


ft 


CO 


v- CO 


■M — 




M- CD 


O 


_2 


c 

CN 


O CN 






co_ 


o 


LL 


00 
CD 


LO" 


cd" 


t5 


(J 


*"" 






^r" 


cd" 


o 


3 






c 












CO 


.t; 






CD 


ro 












CD 


c 






Q. 
X 


2 














CD 






LU 


o 












3 


a 




















o 


X 




















CO 


LU 






































c 






















o 








52 s 














'co 








c -— , 














c 








CD -r- 














CD 








E V-J 














h- 








CD C 






















2 T3 .2 














co 
o 








3 £- O 














0. 








-Q p 3 






















E ^ ^ 














06 








o o g 

Lt .2, o 








co 
"co 
o 


LU 

0=3 w 
CD c 

a. E 

c ® 

O D- 


c 

CD 


COD 

E 8 








3 l "- 
LL (fl 05 








O 

c 


53 
co ro 


■zz O 








Revenue 
994 Bond 
1000 Bond 








'(/> 


ro °3 

CD ^C 

•^z cj 


c 


CD C L- 














CD 

D 


cd ro 


Concre 
Details 
Details 
ichment 
jction Cc 
tv Acquis 






co 
C 
LL 








c 

ro c 
ra.2 


= CD 

C 6 

.2 c 


.2 o 






"5 

a) 

o 

•_ 

3 


Parking 
Series 1 
Series 2 


_co 


; 5 
LL 

) 




c o 
5 E 

TO CD 
D. Q 


ro iS 

o Q_ 
O _ 
0J CO 


City Pla 

Constru 

Site Wo 

Pouring 

Exterior 

. Interior 

. ArtEnr 

. Constn 

. Proper! 






O 




o 












. O t- CN CO 


o 




CO 


< ccl O 


I — 


■"-.. 




— CN 


co ft 


LO CD h- 


co o - - ~ - 


L_ 



5_^ 






Attachment I 
Pape 'I or 2~~ 



DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE 



Payment Date 

December 15, 2000 
June 15, 2001 
December 15, 2001 
June 15, 2002 
December 15, 2002 
June 15, 2003 
December 15, 2003 
June 15, 2004 
December 15, 2004 
June 15, 2005 
December 15, 2005 
June 15, 2006 
December 15, 2006 
June 15, 2007 
December 15, 2007 
June 15, 2008 
December 15, 2008 
June 15, 2009 
December 15, 2009 
June 15, 2010 
December 15, 2010 
June 15, 2011 
December. 15, 2011 
June 15, 2012 
December 15, 2012 
June 15, 2013 
December 15, 2013 
June 15, 2014 
December 15, 2014 
June 15, 2015 
December 15, 2015 
June 15, 2016 
December 15, 2016 
June 15, 2017 
December 15, 2017 
June 15, 2018 
December 15, 2018 
June 15, 2019 
December 15, 2019 
June 15, 2020 
December 15, 2020 
June 15, 2021 
December 15, 2021 
June 15, 2022 

Total 



Principal 



5245,000 
260,000 
275,000 
290,000 
305,000 
315,000 
330,000 
345,000 
365,000 
380,000 
400,000 
420,000 
440,000 
465,000 
485,000 
515,000 
540,000 
570,000 
605,000 
635.000 
58,185 



Interest 

5181,521.75 

213,555.00 

213.555.00 

213,555.00 

213,555.00 

213,555.00 

206,205.00 

206,205.00 

198,405.00 

198,405.00 

190,155.00 

190,155.00 

183,920.00 

183,920.00 

177,210.00 

177,210.00 

170,122.50 

170,122.50 

162,532.50 

162,532.50 

154,425.00 

154,425.00 

145,665.00 

145,665.00 

136,355.00 

136,355.00 

126,355.00 

126,355.00 

115,645.00 

115,645.00 

104,205.00 

104,205.00 

91,882.50 

91,882.50 

78,787.50 

78,787.50 

64,625.00 

64,625.00 

49,775.00 

49,775.00 

34,100.00 

34,100.00 

17,462.50 

17.462.50 

364,961.75 



Total 

5181,521.75 
213,555.00 
213,555.00 
213,555.00 
213,555.00 
458,555.00 
206,205.00 
466,205.00 
198,405.00 
473,405.00 
190,155.00 
480,155.00 
183,920.00 
488,920.00 
177,210.00 
492,210.00 
170,122.50 
500,122.50 
182,532.50 
507,532.50 
154,425.00 
519,425.00 
145,655.00 
525,665.00 
138,355.00 
536,355.00 
126,355.00 
546,355.00 
115,645.00 
555,645.00 
104,205.00 
569,205.00 

91,882.50 
576,882.50 

78,787.50 
693,787.50 

64,625.00 
604,625.00 

49,775.00 
619,775.00 

34,100.00 
639,100.00 

17,462.50 
652.462.50 

$14,249,961.75 



For Series 



ionds 



Attachment II 
-^age 1 o± 2 



VaSgejo Street Gara g e Revenue 



City Parking Company (Management Fee = 


32.7% of Gross Rev 


enue) 


Calendar Year 


Gross Revenue 1 Management 
(after parking tax) | Fees 


Proprietary 
Expenses 


Net City 
Income 


1999 


$937,349 $306,513 


5129,041 | 


$501,795 


2000 


$979,018 $320,139 


S154,396 


$504,483 


2001* $966,983 $316,204 


$230,000 


$420,780 



* 2001 Figures are January thru July actual and forecasted for August thru December. 
Valet Services and additional operating hours (part of proprietary expenses) will 
discontinue when the North Beach Garage is operational. Average monthly costs = 
$13,000. 



New Management Agreement (Management Fee = S453,144/yr for both garages) 


Garage 


Anticipated Annual 1 Management 
Gross Revenue Fees 


Proprietary 

Expenses 


Net City 
Income 


Vallejo Street 
(2) 40% 


5823,277 


$181,258 


533,500 $608,519 


North Beach 
(2) 60% 


$1,234,916 


$271,886 


$40,000 


S923,030 


Total 


$2,058,193 $453,144 


$73,500 SI, 531,549 



Target Gross Revenue = 52,200,000. 

Vallejo Street Proprietary Expense = $33,500 ($30,000 electricity & $3,500 insurance). 

North Beach Proprietary Expense = $40,000 (536,000 electricity & $4,000 Insurance). 

Revenue and Expenses are projected through the three-year term of the Management 

Agreement. The anticipated proprietary expenses are direct costs related to each garage 

and not a percentage of totals. 

Net City Income does not reflect payment of debt service. 

North Beach Garage Annual Debt Service for calendar year 

2002 = 5427,110 

2003 - 5664,760 

2004 = 5664,610 

Insurance 

Attached is a memorandum to the proposers from the Real Estate Division dated June 8, 
2001 that identifies insurance items that are included in the management fee. The 
Property insurance, including Business Interruption insurance, and Boiler and Machinery 
insurance are costs paid by the City above the management fee. The annual premium at 
the Vallejo Street Garage is $3,500.00 and should be slightly higher for the Norm Beach 
Garage. 

PMe .cfA-fygr-:' 

The Real Estate C - Lvertised on March 3 rd , and 6 th , of 2001 in the San Francisco 

Independent. No i he Invitation to Bid were sent out to about 200 parties that are 

on t ■ uiai 






V CUC: 






City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment II 
Pa^e 2 of 2 

Real Estate Division 

Administrative Services Department 



MEMORANDUM 



June 8,2001 



VIA FACSIMILIE 



TO: Prospective Bidders 

North Beach- Vail ejo Street Garage Bid 

FROM: Jerry Romani/M~^ 

Principal Real Property Officer 

SUBJECT: Insurance Costs 

You were previously advised that the cost of all insurance and bonds was a proprietary 
expense. As such, the cost of the insurance and bonds would not comprise a portion of 
your bid. However, we now request that you include the cost of the comprehensive 
general liability insurance, business automobile liability insurance, garage-keeper's legal 
liability insurance, Workers' Compensation Insurance, blanket fidelity bond and faithful 
performance surety bond, as specified in Article 12 of the subject management 
agreement, in your bid as an operating expense. The cost of property insurance, 
including business interruption insurance, and boiler and machinery insurance, also 
specified in Article 12, will remain as a proprietary expense and should not be included in 
your bid. 

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 554-9876. 



cc: Ron Szeto, Parking Authority 
'rSievenLee, Parking Authority 



' 




Attacnmenc 111 
Page 1 of 2 

City and County of San Franelgco 



DEPARTMENT OF FARKIHQ a TRAFFIC 




YtfLUE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

RONALD S2ETO, ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: October 1,2001 

TO: Anna Weinstein 

Budget Analyst Office 

FROM: Steven Lee A£ 

Principal Analyst 
SF Parking Authority 

RE: Award of the North Beach Garage and Vallejo JsSreet Garage 

Management Agreement to Pacific Park M aftagesssut, Inc. 



This memorandum is a supplement to the memo dated September 25, 2001 that addressed 
the subject matter and additional information that you requested. 

In response to your questions in regard to a projection of growth in the revenues and 
expenses, we have determined that a conservative projection is the most prudent 
approach, Below are specific answers to your questions. 

Question - Why did we not project growth for years 2002 and 2003 of the Management 
Agreement? 

Answer - Given the current downturn in the economy, we were conservative and do not 
want to anticipate growth for the term of the Management Agreement. 
However, we are noticing that the smaller neighborhood garages are able to 
maintain their current status, As this fiscal year progresses and we are able to 
gather more information, we will include growth, if apparent, within our FY 
2002-2003 Budget projections. 

Ay are the proprietary expenses for electrical and insurance constant for the 
term of the Management Agreement? 



IS) 56M»AP> 






Son Frcnctaee, Ct e. 



Attachment 
Paee 2 of 2 



Answer - We decided to make the electrical costs a proprietary expense so that the City 
would realize costs savings, if any, from a lighting retrofit or reduction in 
electricity rates. On the other hand, if the electrical costs were to dramatically 
increase, the operator may not be able to financially cope with this unforeseen 
increase. At this time, the electrical costs have already increased from the 
prior year and we do not foresee anymore significant increases through the 
term of the Management Agreement 

The cost of insurance for the Vallejo Street Garage is one of eleven garages 
insured through the City's Risk Manager. We do not foresee an increase in 
the insurance costs for the Vallejo Street Garage for the term of the 
Management Agreement. At this time, we can only anticipate that the 
electrical and insurance cost for the North Beach Garage would be slightly 
higher than the Vallejo Street Garage with the same reasons for the 
projections. 

The revised Exhibit B - Parking Rate Schedule for the North Beach Garage and the 
Vallejo Street Garage is attached. The revised Parking Rate Schedule reflects what is 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Please do not hesitate to call me at 554-9869 if you have further concerns or questions. 
Attach. 



H:\PAruCTrlG\Gersgc 






SAN FRANCISCO 




DEPARTMENT OF PARKING & TRAFFIC 



Cit' nd County of San Francisco 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

RONALD SZETO, ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 



Attachment IV 
Paee 1 of 3 



>AiE: 



October 12, 2001 



FROM: 



Maureen Singleton 
Budget Analyst Office 

Steven Lee /^C 
Principal Analyst 
SF Parking Authority 



SUBJECT: Award of the North Beach Garage and Vallejo Street Garage 
Management Agreement to Pacific Park Management, Inc. 



This memo will address the questions asked in your fax dated October 9, 2001 . 

1. Imperial Parking withdrew during the pre-qualification process. The General 
Manager of Imperial Parking has stated that they were unable to find a HRC Certified 
Joint Venture Partner that would increase their chances of obtaining the contract 
without taking a financial risk. A firm that is not HRC Certified would essentially 
have to submit a bid that was 90% of or less than they anticipate their HRC Certified 
competitors would submit because of the ratings discount. 

NM Parking elected to withdraw their bid to concentrate on managing the Polk-Bush 
Garage. Mr. Negusu Merid of NM Parking was concerned that he did not have 
adequate resources to effectively operate three garages. 

2. Construction is still in progress. DPW reports that the project costs should not exceed 
the original amount, 513.952,276, approved by the Board of Supervisors. Attached is 
a spreadsheet showing all costs. 

3. Attached is a spreadsheet that addresses your questions in relation to the Debt 
Service. The True Interest Cost for the North Beach Garase is 5.4 . 






Attachment IV 
Page 2 of 3 



Maureen Singleton 
October 12,2001 
Page 2 of 3 



4. Valet parking was implemented in May of 1998 to provide extra opportunity for 
residents, merchants and visitors to park their vehicles off-street (reducing traffic 
congestion by accommodating patrons who would have otherwise been circling the 
block looking for a space). Since the North Beach Garage was sized to meet the 
demand of 187 self-park spaces (projected by TJKM, Transportation Consultants), we 
anticipate less need for valet parking reducing operating costs. However, we will 
implement valet parking in the future, if needed, during special events. 

5. There continues to be a high demand for parking in the area, just not 24 hours per 
day. Although valet parking has helped, the Vallejo Street Garage continues to be full 
and vehicles are turned away. We anticipate that keeping one of the two garages 
open 24 hours would be sufficient to meet the parking demand during the after hours. 
We will again reduce operating costs without sacrificing services to the community. 

6. The Parking Authority combined the two garages into one management agreement to 
benefit the City with the overall revenues and savings for both garages. The revenues 
for the Vallejo Street Garage reflect 40% of the total revenue based on the ratio of 
total parking spaces in both garages. The Management Fee reflects 40% of the total 
operating hours for both garages. Additionally, the Vallejo Street Garage will not 
record revenues generated by vehicles that are currently valet parked and both 
garages will generate more revenues by accommodating vehicles that are turned away 
when the Vallejo Street Garage is full 

7. The attached spreadsheet illustrates the calculations for the Target Revenue. Walker 
Parking Consultants did not perform the Demand Study. Attached for your review is 
the study by TJXM Transportation Consultants. Yes, the S2.2 million was specified 
in the Bid Package that is also attached. 

8. We do not feel that Proprietary Expenses should be capped for several reasons. 

a. If the already specified Proprietary Expense (electricity and insurance cost) 
should increase over the possible six-year life of the agreement, we will have no 
means of paying for this cost. 

b. If there is a need for valet parking in the future for increased demand or special 
events. 

c. If the garages should require added security. 

d. There are many unforeseen incidents or events that may occur. Proprietary 

Ex, - i 'ide the Parking Authority with the tools we need to administer the 

gar; 

n that performs - 



Attachment IV 
Page 3 of 3 



Maureen Singleton 
October 12, 2001 
Page 3 of 3 



9. The operators submitted bids that were based on the S2.2M Target Revenue. I wrote 
that we would include growth, if apparent, in the 2002-2003 budget process. We 
need to review the performance of both garages to make the final projections. We 
understand your concerns for not increasing the Target Revenue annually and setting 
a level above what was achieved in the prior year. We will incorporate a percentage 
annual increase of the Target Revenue for future Management Agreements that have 
not already been submitted. 

10. The computation for the S2.2M Target Revenue is attached as part of the answer for 
question #7. Please know that we do not want to give away City money. The S2.2M 
Target Revenue is as it implies and the operator will have to work at achieving this 
goal and possibly make very little incentive if any. The garages will be busy and we 
want our customers to return. Providing an incentive to the operators gives them 
extra motivation to maintain a high level of service to our customers. By maintaining 
the cleanliness of our facilities, by securing our facilities and by operating the garages 
as efficiently as possible, keeps our customers coming back. 

When someone parks in a garage, there are many considerations they might take into 
account before parking. We believe that these are some of the thing that people 
consider when there looking for a place to park. 

a. Does the garage look safe to park in? 

b. Do I have to have my car valet parked? 

c. Axe the rates reasonable? 

d. Do I have options to park somewhere else? 

e. Did I have a bad experience here the last time? 

f. Did my friend recommend parking here? 

g. How difficult is it to enter the garage? 
h. Am I willing to wait to get in? 

i. Was the attendant helpful when I had a problem the last time? 

We want our operators to strive for professionalism, not just show up for the 
Management Fee. 

1 1. The only deflection we see from the Vallejo Street Garage are the vehicles that are 
currently being valet parked and the vehicles that are not able to enter the garage 
when it is full. 

We - ers satisfactorily address your concerns. Please do not 

rr clarification. 



Attachment V 



North Beach Garage and Vallejo Street Garage 
Calculation for setting Target Revenue 



Vallejo Street Garage Gross Transient Revenue (excluding parking tax) 

September 2000 through February 2001 (6 months since rate adjustment) = S435.996 

Vallejo Street Garage Transient Vehicles 

September 2000 through February 2001 (6 months since rate adjustment) = 135.108 

Revenue Per Vehicle = S435,996 / 135,108 = S3.23 per vehicle 

Transient Vehicles less Valet Parked Transient Vehicles 

(6 months since rate adjustment) = 135,108 - 29,543 = 105.565 

Garage Turnover (6 months since rate adjustment) based on 127 spaces 
= 105,565 vehicles/ 182.5 days/ 127 spaces = 4.55 

Anticipated Annual Transient Revenue for both garages 

= 330 spaces x 4.55 turnover x S3. 23 per vehicle x 365 days = SI. 770. 193 

Anticipated Annual Monthly Revenue for both garages 
= 100 monthlies x S240 x 12 months = S288.000 

Total Anticipated Annual Revenue for both garages 
= SI ,770,193 + 5288,000 = S2.058.193 

Target Revenue = S2.200.000 = 7% above S2,058,193 



R A N C I S C Q 



Attachment VI 
City snci County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OP PARKING i. TRAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Flayer 

FRED M. HAMDUN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 



RONALD SZETO. ACTING DIRECTOR. PARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 


November 20, 2001 


TO: 


Anna Laforte 
Budget Analyst Office 


FROM: 


Steven Lee /ff 
Principal Analyst 
Parking Authority 



RE: Award of the North Beach Garage Vallejo Street Garage 

Management Agreement to Pacific Park Management, Inc. 



Per your request, this memorandum separately addresses item #6 of the list of questions 
faxed by your office on October 9, 2001. 

Question - Why are the estimated gross revenues for Vallejo Street Garage less under the 
new management agreement than the gross revenue in 1999, 2000 and 2001? 

Answer- The Parking Authority combined the two garages into one management 
agreement to benefit the City with the overall revenues and savings for both garages. The 
revenues for the Vallejo Street Garage reflect 40% of the total revenue based on the ratio 
of total parking spaces in both garages. Additionally, the Vallejo Street Garage will not 
generate revenues from valet parking when the valet parking is discontinued. 

Because of the reasons stated above, the gross revenue for the Vallejo Street Garage is 
anticipated to be 15% less than the anticipated 2001 calendar year. However, the net 
revenue to the City is anticipated to be 45% above the anticipated 2001 calendar year. 

Please call me should you have additional concerns. 



H:'PAiUaNG\C.-ir 



-icmo 10 A.Lifoac.dov 



" 



25 Van 






S A H FRtNCISCO 




WILLIE LEWIS BBQWK, JR., Ksyor 

FRED M- HAMQUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

RONALD SZHTO. ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 



City and County of San Francisco 




DATE; 
TO: 

FROM: 
RE: 



September 19, 2001 

Anna Weinstein 
Budget Analyst Office 

Steven Lee 
Principal Analyst 
SF Parking Authority 

Award of the Worth Beach Garage 
Management Agreement to Pacific 



Valiejo Street Garaf 
Isnageraentj Inc. 



Per our discussion, the following are the items of clarification that you requested. 
Interes ted F i rms 





Plckcd-up Bid Package 


11 Submitted 
Pre-qualtfi cation 


Submitted Bid 


Adjusted for HRC 

Bid Discount 


1 


ABC Parking, Inc. 








2 


Beach Parking 


Yes 




> 


3 | Central Parkin? System 








4 


City Park Management 








5 


City Parking Company 


Yes 


841,753.00 


Not in contention 


6 


Daja, Inc. 


Yes 


S41.249.76 


Not in contention 


7 


Douglas Parking, LLC 








8 


Five Star / Elite Parking 


Yes 


$42,071.00 


Not in contention 


9 


Imperial Parking 


Yes (withdrew) 


1 


10 ! NM Parkins 


Yes 


$36,836,00 (withdrew) 


1 Withdrew bid 


11 1 Pacific Park Management 


Yes 


237,762.76 


1 S33.9S6.4S w/10% 


12 1 Parking Concepts, Inc. 


1 Yes 


S44.348.00 


] Not in contention 


13 ! Pro Park 




1 


14 I PPS Parking 


Yes 


I £35,000,00 


I S35,000 not certified 


15 1 Pvoyal Valet Parking 


1 Yes 


I S5 1,9 18. 00 


1 Not in contention 


16 i U.S. Parkins 


Yes 




17 1 Universal 






1 



IS) SBHPfcRK FAiU 



25 Van Noes Awsnao, Si 



Ban Francises, tt. 



kk 



j County of San Francisco 



.*&&* 




Willie Lewis Grown, Jr. 
Mayor 



--'•"■ ■ Attachment VI l 
Paee 2 of 2 

Human Rigrns commission 

Contrail Complianoo 

Dispmo Resalytion/FEir Housing 

Minority/Wemen/Laeal luslness Enterprise 

Les&ian Gay BisbsusI Transgsndsr 4 HIV Discrimination 



MEMORANDUM 



VlrginU M. Hsrmefl 
Interim Director 



To: Jerry Romani, Department of Real Estate 
Ron Szcto, Parking & Traffic 

From: Bay2f0 4 Fong 

Contract Compliance Officer 



Daw: July \2, 2Q0J 

Re: Ratings Discounts for the North Beach Gara§e<VaUejo Si. Garage Bid. 

HRC has conducted u review of the top three ranked proposals on the above-identified 
solicitation to determine compliance with the Chapter 12D.A MBE/WBE/LBE discount 
and subcontracting requirements. It should be noted that due to the size and scope of this 
project, the MBE/WBE subconsulting goals were waived. 

Based on the Chart below we have mads the following findings: 

Although PPS Parking had the lowest bid, it did not apply for a rating discount. 
The next bidder NM Parking has withdrawn its bid. The third bidder, Pacific Park 
Management - claimed a 10% EBE/MBE racing discount on HRC Form 1 . Pacific Park 
Management is HRC certified as an MBE. Therefore, Pacific Park Management is 
eligible for a 10% rating discount. Incorporating the discount moves Pacific Park 
Management into first position. 



Proposer 


Bid 


HRC Rating D 


HRC% 


PPS Parking - 


$35,000 


No 





NM Parking- 


$36,836 


Yes 


10 


Pacific Park - 


$37,762 


Yes 


10 



Adjusted Bid Rank 

$35,000 2 

(32,153) with/drew - 

$33,986 l 



In addition, Pacific Park Management is in the process, of coming into compliance with 
Chapter 1 2B. Assuming this is completed, Pacific Park Management will be eligible for 
consideration of award. 

If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Your cooperation is 

greatly appreciated, 



Cc: Diana Rathbone, HRC 
Virginia Harmon, HRC 



25 vjnrisss Avenue 
Suite BOO 
San ?rjne<Sir 
19 511G;-503j 



T=„(--,l6; .1S2-250C 
TOO (4!5):. r . 



Attachment V". 



Exhibit B 

North Beach Garage 

Vallcjo Street Garage 

Parking Rats Schedule 



Pn y Rates (7am telgmLMfinday ^ rovg LSaaaiay 

1 Hour SI. 50 

2 Hours S3, 25 

3 Hours $5.25 

4 Hours $7.50 

5 Hours $9.50 

6 Hours $12,00 
7+ Hours S 15.00 

Evening Rates (7pm to 7am) Monday through Saturday 
Sunday and Holiday Rates Tall day') 



1 Hour 

2 Hours 

3 Hours 

4 Hours 
5+ Hours 



$2.50 

$5.00 

$7.50 

$10.00 

$12.50 



24 Hours 
Lost Ticket 



$27,50 
$27.50 



Regular 
Carpool 



$300.00 
S150.00 



Late Monthly Payments $25.00 

Lost Access Card $25.00 

Acesss Card Deposit S50.00 

Damaged Access Card $25.00 
-ning Fee 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 -File 01-1883 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
November 7, 2001. 

Department: Airport 

Item: Resolution (a) approving Controller's certification that 

employee parking management services for the San 
Francisco International Airport can continue to be 
practically performed by a private contractor at a lower 
cost for the year commencing July 1, 2001 than if the 
work were performed by City and County employees, and 
(b) approving an operating agreement (contract) between 
Pacific Park Management Inc., and the City and County 
of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission, to provide parking management services at 
the Airport. 

EMPLOYEE PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES 
PROPOSITION J APPROVAL 
Services to be 
Performed: Emploj^ee parking management services 

Description: Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 

contract with private firms for services, if the Controller 
certifies, and the Board of Supervisors concurs, that such 
services can in fact be performed by private firms at a 
lower cost than similar work performed by City 
employees. 



BOARD OF SUPE 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

The Controller has determined that contracting for 
employee parking management services at the Airport for 
FY 2001-2002 would result in estimated savings as 
follows: 

Lowest Highest 

Salary Salary 

Citv-Operated Service Costs Step Step 

Salaries $2,559,193 S3, 027, 553 

Fringe Benefits 736.755 810,381 

Total $3,295,948 $3,837,934 

Contractual Services Costs 1 2.285.058 2.511.841 

Estimated Savings $ 1,010,890 $1,326,093 

Comments: 1. Employee parking management services at the Airport 

include management of parking operations for Airport, 
airline and concession employees, security guard services 
and janitorial services, according to Ms. Vicki Sundstrom 
of the Airport. 

2. The subject management services were first certified 
as contractual services as required under Proposition J 
(Charter Section 10.104) in 1971, and have been 
continuously provided by an outside contract since then. 

3. Ms. Sundstrom advises that ABC Parking Inc./THOR 
provided employee parking management services to the 
Airport from September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2001. 
The Airport had a one-year contract with ABC Parking 
Inc./THOR from September 1, 1999 through August 31, 
2000 with four one-year extensions. According to Ms. 
Sundstrom, the Airport exercised one of the four one-year 
contract extensions with ABC Parking Inc./THOR from 
September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2001. Since 
August 31, 2001, Ampco System Parking (Ampco) has 
provided temporary interim employee parking 
management services under Ampco's contract with the 



! Contractual Services Costs include contract monitoring by the Airport. When calculating salaries at 
the highest salary step, such costs increase by $4,031 annually. Contractu?:! Sendees Costs also 
include a high and low estimate of the management fee, including a profit and overhead portion. 
When calculating at the highest salary step, such contract cost inc. : ; a total 

Contractual Services cost increase of $226,783. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISE 
BUDGET ANALYS1 
U 8 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Airport to provide other parking management services 
including public and employee parking services. Ampco's 
contract to provide such parking management services 
was temporarily expanded to include the employee 
parking management services previously handled by ABC 
Parking Inc./THOR pending Board of Supervisors 
approval of the subject proposed new contract for 
employee parking management services which is 
estimated to begin on January 3, 2002. 

4. Attachment I to this report, provided by the Airport, 
is the Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses. Ms. Sundstrom advises that 
Attachment I incorrectly shows that the contract period is 
November 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001. The 
correct contract period is January 3, 2002 through 
January 2, 2003. 



EMPLOYEE PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES 
?ING AGREEMENT 



Purpose of Operating 
Agreement: 



To provide for the operation and maintenance, including 
security guard and janitorial services, of the following 
four parking facilities at the Airport: 

(1) Lot DD Garage with approximately 3,212 parking 
spaces for Airport, airline and concession employees; 

(2) Lot DD Surface Lot with 1,600 parking spaces for 
Airport, airline and concession employees; 

(3) West Field Garage with 1,722 parking spaces for 
Airport, airline and concession employees; and 

(4) Lot CC Surface Lot with 300 parking spaces for 
Airport, airline and concession employees. 

The proposed operating agreement would cover a total of 
6,834 parking spaces for Airport, airline and concession 
employees. 



description: 



The proposed resolution would award a parking operating 
agreement, including security guard and janitorial 
services, for the Lot DD Garage, the Lot DD Surface Lot, 
the West Field Garage and the Lot CC Surface Lot to 
Pacific Park Management. 



,'APL 

bue :• " 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Amount Payable by 
Airport to Pacific 
Park Management: 



Not to exceed $2, 808, 336. 64 2 during the first year of the 
proposed operating agreement from January 3, 2002 
through January 2, 2003. Attachment II, provided by the 
Airport, provides budget details for the estimated cost of 
82,808,336.64 for the proposed operating agreement. 
Attachment III, provided by the Airport, provides budget 
details for the estimated management fee in the amount 
of 8271,772 or 9.7 percent of the total estimated operating 
agreement costs of $2,808,336.64. 

In her October 29, 2001 memorandum to the Budget 
Analyst (Attachment IV) Ms. Sundstrom explains that the 
Airport is unable at this time to estimate the cost of the 
proposed operating agreement beyond the first year (the 
operating agreement includes 4-one year options to 
extend this agreement) "due to the current climate caused 
by the events of September 11, 2001." 

According to the terms of the proposed operating 
agreement, the Airport Commission would be required to 
approve the Annual Cost Proposal prepared and 
submitted by Pacific Park Management to the Airport 
during the term of this agreement. This Annual Cost 
Proposal would include the management fee and 
estimated direct costs of operating the employee parking 
facilities. According to Ms. Sundstrom, the Annual Cost 
Proposal, and thus the contractual services costs for 
future years, could vary depending on the level of services 
required by the Airport. However, according to the terms 
of the proposed operating agreement, Pacific Park 
Management cannot incur any expenses for such parking 
operations unless and until the Airport Commission 
approves such expenses, which would occur on an annual 
basis (see Comment Mo. 4). 



2 The Controller's certification cost of $2,51i,S41 does not include operating costs totaling $293,473 
that are estimated to cost the same for the City or a private contractor. When adding these operating 
costs of S293.473 to the ler's cos" estimate of $2,511 541. the Controller's estimated cost 

would become $2. 805, 314. r> ontrollei e was based on information available in August of 

2001, prior to the negotia he - - 'at 33 at, which is estimated to cost 

52,808,337. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Term of Operating 
Agreement: 



Comments: 



In accordance with Section 6.3 of the proposed operating 
agreement, the management fee, which is estimated at 
$271,772 for the first year of the proposed operating 
agreement, would increase by the percentage increase in 
the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco 
Metropolitan Area provided that the management fee 
cannot increase by more than four percent per year. 

January 3, 2002 through January 2, 2003 (one year). The 
term of the proposed operating agreement could be 
extended annually for four additional years on approval 
by the Airport Commission. Upon the expiration of the 
fourth one-year extension, the operating agreement may 
be further extended on a month-to-month basis. According 
to Section 3.2 of the proposed operating agreement, "Upon 
expiration of this Agreement, with the consent of the 
operator [Pacific Park Management], Director [of the 
Airport] may direct Operator to continue performance of 
the Services on a month-to-month basis, on the same terms 
and conditions of this Agreement, until such time as City 
has engaged another Operator. " 

At the Committee's meeting of 11/7/2001, the Budget 
Analyst had reported that in accordance with the terms of 
the proposed operating agreement as originally submitted 
to the Board of Supervisors, the agreement could have 
been extended indefinitely on a month-to-month basis 
without obtaining approval of the Board of Supervisors. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommended that the 
proposed operating agreement be amended to require 
Board of Supervisors approval to extend the agreement on 
a month-to-month basis for any period beyond 12 months 
subsequent to the expiration of the fourth one-year 
extension (see Comment No. 6). 

1. On July 27, 2001, the Airport Commission issued a 
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the subject 
management of the parking facilities operating agreement 
including the related security guard and janitorial 
services. Although seven parking operators attended the 
informational conference held on August 15, 2001, only 
one firm, Pacific Park Management, submitted a 
Qualification Package to the Ai .dum 

to the Budget Analyst from M <f the 

Airport (Attachment may 

3 CARD0FSU? -. 
BUDGET AN-r ! 
51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

have occurred because the Minimum Qualifications for 
the contract are difficult for most Small Business 
Enterprise, companies to meet." As stated by Ms. 
Sundstrom in Attachment IV, "A three-member panel 
reviewed the submission and determined that the 
minimum qualification requirements, as set forth by the 
RFQ, were met... Since all the necessary requirements set 
forth in the RFQ were met. the Airport recommended the 
award of the contract to Pacific Park Management Inc." 
Attachment VI, provided by the Airport, lists the 
newspapers and media agencies where the Airport 
advertised this RFQ. 

2. According to Ms. Sundstrom, the Airport issues 
parking permits to Airport, airline and concession 
employees who want to park in one of the four employee 
parking facilities, including Lot DD Garage, the Lot DD 
Surface Lot, the West Field Garage and the Lot CC 
Surface Lot. The Airport issues parking permits to airline 
and concession employees through their employers. 
Airport employees and employees of the parking facility 
operator do not pay to park in the Airports' employee 
parking facilities. Ms. Sundstrom reports that in calendar 
year (CY) 2000, the. Airport generated $4,836,911 in 
revenues from issuing employee parking permits to 
airline and concession employees. During the first three- 
quarters of CY 2001, or January 1, 2001 through 
September 30, 2001, the Airport generated $4,335,164 in 
revenues from issuing employee parking permits to 
airline and concession emplo3 r ees. 

3. Ms. Sundstrom reports that, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000- 
2001, the Airport paid $2, 273, 814 to ABC Parking 
Inc./THOR, including a management fee of $256,804.56 or 
11.3 percent of total operating agreement costs. The 
proposed estimated management fee of $271,772 payable 
to Pacific Park Management is $14,967 or 5.8 percent 
more than the previous management fee. The previous 
management fee was based on 11.3 percent of the total 
operating agreement costs as compared to the proposed 
management fee which is b £ £ = ■ . n : ; ' ' ;: s _ : : •:". ' ~ji the total 
estimated operating costs. r ?nt to 
Pacific Park Management ;: or 
23.5 percent more than : king 

3QARD OF SUPERV I ■ 
BUDGET ANALYS 
52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meetinsr 



Inc./THOR in FY 2000-2001. According to Ms. Sundstrom, 
the payment for FY 2000-2001 for employee parking 
management services under the previous contract with 
ABC "Parking, Inc./THOR included one full year of 
operation of the Lot DD Garage and West Field Garage, 
but only three months of operation of the Lot DD Surface 
Lot, which began operating as an employee parking lot in 
April of 2001. The proposed operating agreement includes 
one full year of operating the Lot DD Surface Lot and ten 
months of operations for Lot CC. 

4. The Controllers annual certification of costs is subject 
to Board of Supervisors approval for each of the up to four 
additional one-year extensions. 

5. Ms. Sundstrom advises that Pacific Park Management 
would subcontract to the following two firms: (a) Costless 
Maintenance Services for janitorial services at an 
estimated cost, of §683,977 for the first year of the 
proposed operating agreement and (b) King Security for 
security guard services at an estimated cost of $1,451,360 
for the first year of the proposed operating agreement. 
The subcontract cost of $2,135,337 is included in the 
operating agreement budget of $2,808,337. 

6. Based on the Finance Committee's request that the 
Budget Analyst's recommendation be implemented, the 
Airport has amended the proposed operating agreement 
by adding a provision which requires Board of Supervisors 
approval prior to the Airport Commission and Pacific 
Park Management agreeing to extend the operating 
agreement on a month-to-month basis for any period 
beyond. 12 months subsequent to the expiration of the 
fourth one-year extension. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



/"' Attachment I 
y . — 

CHARTEk 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUEo HONNAIRE 
DEPARTMENT: Airport Commission 
CONTRACT SERVICES: Airport Employee Parking Facilities Operating Agreement 
CONTRACT PERIOD: November 1 . 2001 to September 30. 2002 

mi Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 
This service has been contracted sines 1571. 

(2) How many City employees were laid off as e result of contracting out 7 
NJA 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
N/A 

■(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent on services to be contracted out? 

; N/A 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out? is this likely to bs a one-time or an ongoing request for contracting 
out? 

Airport Parking services have been contracted out since 1971. Employee parking Is an expansion of parking service 
now being contracted out separately since 1S9S. This Is an on-going request to contract out these services. 

(S) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposilion J certification? Has it been certified for each subsequent year? 

Employee parking, as a part of Public parking, has been certified each year from 1980 to 1999. Since 1999, 
Employes Parking has been certified every year as a separate contract, 
i 

: (7) How will the services meet the goats of your MBEAVBE Action Plan? 

The previous contractor met the MBEAVBE goals by subcontracting janitorial and security services. The new contra 
currently under process calls for 15% MBE and 3% WBE subcontracting goals. The RFQ calls for the candidate to 
achieve the M/WBE subcontracting goals or demonstrate "good faith efforts" to achieve the goals 

[2) Does the proposed contractor provide hearth insurance for its employees? 

The new contract calls for compliance with the San Francisco Health Care Accountability Ordinance (Section 12Q o' 
the San Francisco Administrative Code). 

(9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? if so, are the same benefits provided tc 
employees with domestic partners? tf not, how does the proposed contractor comply with the Domestic Partners 
ordinance? 

The contract calls for compliance with the'Domes'Jc Partners Ordinance. 

Does the proposed contractor pay meet the iinimum Compensation Ordinance? 

is for eornplia Vance. 






.-- ? and Rrsncs 



ANNUAL BUDGET 

WESTFIELD, LOT DD GARAGE and LOT DD SURFACE PARKING 



Attachment II 



Attachment 6 



PAYROLL 



Parking Operators Payroll 



Annual 
Budget 

S159, 698.68 



PAYROLL OVERHEAD 
Payroll Taxes 
FICA 
FUI 
SUI 
Total Payroll Taxes 
Employee Benefits 

Total Payroll Overhead 

OTHER EXPENSES 

Accounting Services 

Bank Charges 

Facility Mods & Equip (specific expends.) 

Janitorial Services 

Legal Services 

Management Fee 

Scavenger 

Security and Traffic Control 

Supplies and Service 

Telephone/Communication Expenditures 

Total Other Expenses 

Grand Total 



521,588.75 
$36,156.00 
S57.744-.75 



S5.732.96 

S264.60 

$157,500.00 

$683,977.00 

55,512.54 

S271, 772,00 

$7,938.00 

$1,451,360.57 

52,866.54 

53.969.00 

S2,590,B93.21 

52,808,336.64 



modrfieci 



:acnmert lll 



Attachment 7 



Fee Components 



Pacific Park Management, Inc 
Management Fee for Employee Parking Contract 

Annual Fee 



General Manager: 
Administrative Assistant: 



S70.000.00 
S37.000.00 



Premiums 

Required insurance: 

Workers Compensation SI 3.574.39 

Commercial General Liability S58.O8O.O0 

Business Automobile Liability S7,260.00 

Garage Keeper' s Legal Liability S5,080.00 

Burglary and Robbery S2.178.00 



Premiums Subtotal S86, 174.39 



Reouired deposit: 



Overhead and Pront: 



52,500 
576,096.94 



Total Proposed .Annual Management Fee: 



5271,771.33 






56 



VTA FACSIMILE TO 415-252-0461 



October 29, 2001 



Attachment lv 



a p e 



•f 3 




San Francisco Internationni Aiipori 



P.O Box B097 

San ?r fl nci,io. CAC'<;12S: 

"c 1 ssc.tji.snoo 

r t n 65Q.n71.%0Ds 
www Flytfn com 



COMMIJHON 
Lin "»0 COUNTY 

o; iAH rxAKCijCO 

Wltllh L. MHOWK Jk. 
WP NUT V, llfc'UMAri 

rutsioem 

l«B»T MAZZOLA 
Vlff P/ICflpCHT 

MrCHACl I.JTHUNSKT 

LINDA i. CfcATTON 

Caryl no 



J O: Ms. Anna LaForts 

Board of Supervisors, Finance Committee 

FROM: Vick Sundstrom 

Airport Parking Management 

RE: Airport Employee Parking Facilities Operating Agreement 

Per your request, I am providing to you the chronological events for the Airport 
Employee Parking Facilities Request for Qualifications. 



• Request for Qualifications Issued 

■ RFQ & Informational Conference Advertised 

• Press Release sent 

■ Informational Conference Date 

• Addendum 1 Issued (See attachment 4) 

■ RFQ due date 



July 27, 2001 
See attachment 2 
Sec attachment 3 
August 15,2001 
August 23, 2001 
August 31, 2001 



W xn l «umw [q accordance with the RFQ, the evaluation of qualified parties was based on the 
««w"«™ following: 

Evaluation nf Qualifications . All Candidates that satisfy the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements will be evaluated by a panel which is to determine the 

most qualified Candidate based on the following criteria: 



Ownership or Management Experience 
Parking Control System Experience 
Staff Management Experience 
Financial Ability 



50% 
20% 
20% 

10% 



Informational CoRferen.ee 

The informational conference was held on August 1 5, 2001. Sever, parking 
operators attended the informaiional conference. One company requ 
minimum qualifications be reduced. To address this comment r .~.% the 






Attachment IV 
l J a?e 'l oi 3 



meeting, ihc Airport Minority/Women Outreach Department did some diligence to 
determine if the requirements were too burdensome. It appeared as though at least 
three companies could satisfy the requirements so the Airport opted not to reduce 
the minimum requirements. 

Addendum 1, attachment 4, was issued to address minor changes in the RFQ and 
included responses to the questions brought up at the meeting. No material changes 
were made to the RFQ. 

Purification Submittal 

The Airport received one submission for the RFQ, from Pacific Park Management, 
Inc. A three-member panel reviewed the submission and determined that the 
minimum qualification requirements, as set forth by the RFQ, were met. 

On September 14, 2001, HRC determined that Pacific Park Management is 
responsive to the subcontracting goals as set forth in the RFQ. (Attachment 5). 

Since all the necessary requirements set forth in the RPQ were met, the Airport 
recommended the award of the contract to Pacific Park Management Inc. 

Pacific Park Management Inc. was awarded the Airport Employee Parking Facilities 
Operating Agreement for one year with four one-year options to extend the term 
(see "Resolution No. 01-0304" previously sent to the Clerk of the Board). 

Annunl Cost Proposal 

Your request for the projections of the Annual Cost Proposal for the four one-year 
options are not available at this time due to the current economic climate caused by 
the events of September 1 1 , 200 1 . Please be assured that we will return to the 
Board of Supervisors each year to obtain the Proposition J approvals. 

In drafting the final Operating Agreement, staff and the City Attorney's Office 
ensured that a number of controls were in place, such as: 

In accordance of section 1.17 of the Operating Agreement: 

"Management Fee" means two hundred seventy-one thousand seven 
hundred seventy-two dollars ($27 1,772) per year, as the same maybe 
adjusted by the CPI each year, as described below. The Management Fee 
has been negotiated between the parties and represents: (a) the salaries of 
the designated Parking Staff, (b) the premiums for all insurance, bonds, and 
deposits required hereunder, and (c) Operator's overhead and profit, as 
shown in Appendix B. If and to the extent the aggregate salaries of the 
Parking Staff are less than the amounts described on Appendix B, then the 
Management Fee shall be reduced accordingly. Director reserves the right to 
approve labor cost components of the fee. Notwithstanding anything to the 
contrary in this Agreement, including Section 6.3, in no event will: (a) the 
"overhead and profit" components of the Management Fes exceed £hree 
percent (3%) of the Annual Cost Proposal for any year of this Agreement; 



Attachment IV 
Pare 3 of 3 



or (b) the Management jrse exceed twelve percent (12%) of the Annual 
Cost Proposal for any year of this Agreement. 

Section 6.2 Compensation Structure of the Operating Agreement, 

Compensation payable by City to Operator hereunder comprises the 
Management Fee and the Actual Direct Costs. On or before November of 
each year, Operator shall submit to City for City's approval the Annual Cost 
Proposal for the upcoming year, in form satisfactory to Director. The 
Annual Cost Proposal shall set forth the Management Fee and estimated 
Actual Direct Costs. Operator shall incur no expenses under this Agreement 
unless and until the Annual Cost Proposal has been approved in writing by 
Director. Compensation payable to Operator shall be limited each year by 
the amounts set forth in the approved Annua] Cost Proposal. City shall have 
no obligation to pay any invoice which indicates that an expense item 
exceeds, or is projected to exceed, the amount therefore specified in the 
Airport-approved Annual Cost Proposal. In the event that the City exercises 
the options to extend the term of this Agreement, for each such extension 
period, Operator shall be required to submit a Annual Cost Proposal in a 
form that is satisfactory to Director. 

Section 6.3 Management Fee Adjustment of the Operating Agreement, 

(a) If and to the extent City exercises the option(s) to extend the term of this 
Agreement, the Management Fee for the extension term(s) shall be increased 
in the same proportion as the increase in the CPI at such time as compared to 
the CPI on the commencement date of this Agreement However, the 
increases provided for in this Section shall be limited to four percent (4%) 
per annum. 

(b) In the event City expands or contracts the Facilities to include or exclude 
any new or existing parking facilities, the Management Fee shall be adjusted 
to reflect: (i) the actual increases or decreases in the salaries of the Parking 
Staff necessary for such expanded or contracted Facilities, and the premiums 
for the insurance, bonds, and deposits required hereunder, and (ii) a pro rata 
adjustment (based on number of parking spaces) in the "overhead and profit" 
component of the Management Fee. in no event will the Management Fee 
be adjusted for the mere increase or decrease in the number of parking 
spaces in any Facility. 

The annual cost proposal for the first contract year and the management ice 
schedule are shown in attachments 6 8c 7. 

The expenses incurred and budget for this contract for fiscal year 00/01 by the 
prcvic c or arc shown in attachment S. 

Pleas. - 

cc: St; 



Attachment V 
?a?.e I or 5~ 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 
via facsimile 
5 pages total 

TO: Anna LaForte DATE: 

FROM: Cathy Widener 

SUEJECT: Airport Employee Management Services - Pacific Park Management contract 

Per your request regarding the Airpor's speculation as to why we only received one bid for the 
employee-parking contract, I am providing you with a copy of the Minimum Qualifications for the 
contract by way of background. 

While seven companies came to the Airport's Informational Conference held on August 15, only 
one - Pacific Park Management - submitted a Qualification Package to the Airport. 

This may have occurred because the Minimum Qualifications (see attached) for the contract are 
difficult for most Small Business Enterprise companies to meet While this is considered a Small 
Business Enterprise contact for the Airport because it is relatively small compared to other parking 
contracts, the number for spaces (over 6,000) demand that a "responsive" bidder meet the 
Minimum Qualifications. 

The Airport's Minority and Women Business Outreach Department reviewed the qualifications and 
determined that at least three out of the seven companies could have met the requirements, but for 
reasons unknown to the Airport two of the three choose not to submit bids. 



Attachment V 
?s ge A of 5 



SECTION I: OVERVIEW 

A- Minimum Oualificatioa Reanjjemgflts . All Qualifications Packages must include 
maxerials evidencing each Candidate's satisfaction of the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements. Airport staff will review the Qualifications Package of the Candidates to 
determine whether each is responsive, is responsible, and satisfies the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements. Tnis is a ^ass/faiT' determination. The Airport 
Commission will not award the contract to any Candidate that does not satisfy the 
Minimum Qualification Requirements. 

Each Candidate must demonstrate that it satisfies tha Minimum Qualification 
Requirements set forth below. 

9 Ownership or Management . The Candidate must have at least five years of 

experience within the past five (5) years as an owner or operator of a public 
anaVor employee parking facility (mnlri-level, at-gxade and/or surface lot). For at 
least two (2) of those years, the aggregate number of parking stalls for such 
facility(ies) must have exceeded 1^500 parking stalls combined 

• Small Business Enterprise ("SBE") - Candidate must qualify as a Small Business 

Enterprise, which is defined as: 

1 . Small business entity which is owned and controlled by one or more 
economically disadvantaged individuals, is independently owned and operated 
and organized for profit; and 

2. Small business entity may be an individual proprietorship, partnership, limited 
liability company, corporation, joint venture or association; and 

3. Small business entity must have annual gross receipts in the preceding three 
years not exceeding 55 million. 

Computerized Parking Control System Experience . Candidate must have at least 

two (2) years of experience operating and maintaining parking security and access 
control systems based on card readers, loop-detectors and automatic gates. 

Staff . Candidate must have experience managing a staff of at least ten (1 0) 

employees (including employees and employees of contractors) in its owned or 
operated parking faciliry\ies). 

Financial Ability . Candidate must demonstrate that ii has the financial capacity 

and experience to operate the Project. 

If Candidate is a Joint Venture, any joint venture panner(s) owning 50% or more must 
satisfy all of the foregoing qualification requirements. Any joint venture parmcrfs) 
owning less than 50% in the joint vearare must have a minimum of three (3) years of 
general management experience, and provide evidence of managing-ownership or 

faaucfi for Qualificarions for the j-.irpor: Efnp'cyec Pwhia; Facilities Opcrsoag Agjccnveni Sector. I 



PaH,e 3 of 5" 



senior/general management of a viable, for-profit business concern during thai time. 
Both (ail) Joint Venture partners must bfi Small Business Enterprises. 

B. Evaluation of QuBllflcstiops . All Candidates that satisfy the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements will be evaluated by a panel which is to determine the most qualified 
Candidate based on the following criteria: 

Ownership or Management Experience 50% 

Parking Control System Experience 20% 

Staff Management Experience 20% 

Financial Ability 10% 

C Ne-gotiatioq of Ma nagement Fee . Identification of the most qualified Candidate will not 
imply that the Candidate will receive award of the contract. The Airport intends to 
negotiate the Management Fee with the top-ranked Candidate. In the event the Director 
determines that a Management Fee cannot be negotiated with the top-ranked Candidate or 
if the Director determines the parries at at an impasse, the Director, in his sole 
discretion, may terminate negotiations, and direct staff to commence negotiations with 
the next highest ranked Candidaie(s), and so on. The Airport intends to seek a 
Management Fee chat represents value as well as economy, and it may not be the lowest 
possible management fee. Although the Airport reserves the right to negotiate any 
Management Fee it deems appropriate, it intends to negotiate within the following 
guidelines: 

(1) The Management Fes will comprise only. 

• Salaries of the General Manager and Administrative Assistant; 
e Premiums for all required insurance, bonds, and deposita, and 

• Operator's overhead and profit. 

(2) The overhead and profit components of the Management Fee shall not 
exceed three percent (3%) of the Annual Cost Proposal for any year; 

(3) The total Management Fee shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the 
Annual Co3t Proposal for any Year; and 

(4) The Management Fee shall be adjusted each year by the CPI but in no 
event will the increases in any given year exceed four percent (4%). 

The standard Airport contract provisions shall not be subject to negotiations. 

D. Quallfieatloas Submittal , m submitting its Qualifications Package, a Candidate agrees 
that (a) if its submission is accepted, Candidate will execute the Agreement on or before 
the deadline specified by the Airport Director, and (b) Candidate accepts all of the terms 
and conditions of this PJQ (including the Agreement). Any Qualifications Package 
received after the Qualifications Submittal Deadline will be returned to the Candidate. 

E. Bosd . To secure the Candidate's obligation to execute the Agreement and submit the 
deposit and bonds required by the Agreement, each Candidate must submit in its 
Qualifi cations Package a bond or a letter of credit in the form attached zs Attachment 2 
which bond or letter of credit must be in the amount of 550,000. The Airport 

a icr 0«aJiij«boni hi ih* Ajrpon Einployet Pirldag Fsdliiiw Oprranng Ap-eanent Sccner, I 

Page 7 



Pape 4 of 5" 



Commission reserves the right to cash the bond/letter of credit and hold the proceeds 
thereof as security for the obligations described below. No submissions will be 
considered unless accompanied by the bond/letter of credit. The bond/letter of credit will 
be held to guarantee execution of the Agreement and the Candidate's delivery of the 
deposit required by the Agreement, and the bond/letter of credit or the cash proceeds 
thereof will be retained by the Airport Cornrnission as liquidated damages in the event the 
successful Candidate fails to do so. 

F. Pre^eBtati ons/Interviawa . The Airport Commission reserves the right to conduct 
interviews and/or presentations. In such event, the scores from the written Qualifications 
Package will be weighted 80% and the scores of the mterviews/presentarions will be 
weighted 20%. 

G. M/W/LBE participation Goals &n4 Jfoist Ventures . As used b<lo-w, the term "MBE", 
"WBE", and "LBE M shall mean Minority Business Enterprise, WoruEa Business 
Enterprise, and Local Business Enterprise, respectively, as defined by the City and 
County of San Francisco Chapter 12D.A., MBEAVBE/LBE Utilization Ordinance. 
Consistent with San Francisco Adnunistrativc Code Section 12.DA., the Airport 
Comrnission's policy is to ensure thalM/W/LBEs have equal opportunities to participate 
in all phases of Airport contracting.' 

0) Jpjnt^enturea. The Candidate may joint-venture with a local certified MBE or 
WBE for a minimum of 35%. The joint- venture partner must meet the 
requirements as specified in San Francisco A dmini strati ve Code Chapter 12.D.A., 
(refer to Attachment 3). 

(2) Subcortsulting Goals , The Candidate must achieve the MAYBE subconsulting 

goals or demonstrate "good-fairh efforts" to achieve such goals in the Project. For 
this Project, the subconsul ting goals arc fifteen percent (15%) for MBEs, and 
three percept (3%) for WRFs, based on the Annual Cost Proposal, minus the 
Management Fee. A Candidate may request that the HRC Director waive or 
reduce the subconsulting goals by submirting the reasons for the request in writing 
to Project Manager wiib its Qualifications Package. The factors that the HRC 
Director wiJI consider in evaluating such a request are set forth in San Francisco 
Administrative Code Section 12.DA. 17(G). Denial of the request may be 
appealed to the HRC. The M/WBEs must be certified by the HRC prior to the 
Qualifications Submittal Deadline to be counted toward satisfying these 
subconsulring goals. In its Qualifications Package, the qualified Candidate must 
submit to HRC for review and approval all required KRC Forms and data 
demonstrating the proposed plan to achieve the M/VVBE subcoosulting goals, or 
good faith efforts to achieve such goals, for (he Project As described above, 
Candidates ere instructed to Bse the 2001/02 Annual Con Proposal as the basts 
for demonstrating thai they will meet the M/WBE sub ca vaulting gczls or 
demonstrating "good faith efforts, " 

0) Rating Bonus . Candidates who areM/W/lBEc -..rain 

rating bonus. If applying for a rating bonus as s /LBE 

Paayrcx for QiuJineerictu for ch« Airpon Employ pLridig Fecilia«s Op^id; ; Section ] 

Page 8 



Pap.e 5 of 5 



must be an active partner in the joint venture and perform work, manage the job ' 
and take financial risks in proportion to the required level of participation stared 
in the bid, and must be responsible for a ciearly defined portion of the work to be 
performed and share in the ownership, control, management respotLsfbLlitiea, 
risks, and profits of the joint venture. The portion of the M/W/LBE joint 
venture's work shall be set forth in detail separately from the work to be 
performed by the non-MAWLBE joint venture partner. The M/W/LBE joint 
venture's portion of the contract must be assigned a commercially reasonable 
doUar value. See Anechmerti 3 for more information. 

(4) More Information . If you have any questions about the MAV/LHE program, or if 
you desire M/W/LBE cerrificariQn applications, please contact Romulus Asenloo, 
HRC Contract Compliance Officer at the Airport, at (650) 794-5578, fax no: 
(650) 737-7720. If you need a list of certified local M/WBEs, you can access the 
names from the HRC website at: wv/w. ri.sf.ca.ua/smumanrighLs. or you may call 
the Airport MAYBE Opportunity Office at (650) S2 1-5021. 



Rcqucs f« Qualification- [or the 




ft. i_ l- C.U j;ici: i- 

Pa^e 1 of 3 



P UBLICATIONS 

;-i^i-.--- -;■- .-..->-- •.; %. ;-;--- -> T~~? :t r : ■■■ ■ , y^;^s~L^_^_-- : - - ■-"- -- --~ T ~~- ------.--■ "' l__-_^ . ;.- -.A =:■,[-■_ --r_-~ ^" ; - 



Asian Wssk 

China Press 

Chkmss T1rn®3 

El Latino 

B Report®*-© 

New Bayvtew 

Philippe© Ngrws 

Ssn Pnandsco Bsy Times 

Small Business Exchange 



Atta.cur.enuv j. 
p?rp. \i of. '3 




Bsy City &sn Francisco 

Bay C#y Ntews RWC 

KJCLI 

KPIX 

KH7V 

KOFY 

KQED 

KGOAM 

Channel 28 

KC8SAJM 

KFRCAM 

Marin Independent 

Oakland Trfoune 

FC Progress 

D&Jty Rsvbw 

San Joaa Nitefcyry Nsws 

Millbraa Sun 

San Bruno Hsrakj 

KTVU 

San Mateo Times 

KGOTV 

Independent Nsws Group 

San Frandsoo Ovwddo 

San Frandoc© Esaminor 

KRONTV 

Associated Pnass 

KFOG 

Channel 14 

Mento Parte Almanac 



San Ffsnos^ Independent 
BOUTVLGR 

USA Today 



Fox 



Trsv^Wo 

Tr@v®IW®s 
Reuters H&m 



Channel 48 

WaD Street Journal 



NY BSoombs-fg News 



SF Bteom&gfg U®vm 



ACl AJrp6n" Week 
Airport R&ped 
Travol Nsw3 Asia 
AJf Flrtcnco Journal 
Airports Nosih Amorka 

Con^a Costa Tirftea 
PhllsdolphJj 



Attachment VI 
Pare i or i 






Psn Asia Venture SPGYg Tcisyo 

Sing Tao Dairy SFCV1 Shanghai 

Kycdo (Maws Coium&ug Travel Quid© 

India West Aero international 

Air Reporter WerW , 



San Pr@rs€£=ea Vteftofa Amadesn Journal 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-1884 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
November 7, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Purpose of 
Agreement: 



terating 



description: 



Airport 

Resolution approving an Airport parking facilities 
operating agreement (contract) between Ampco System 
Parking and the City and County of San Francisco, acting 
by and through its Airport Commission. 

To provide for the operation and maintenance, including 
security guard and janitorial services, of the following 
three public parking garages, one public parking lot and 
one Impound Lot: 

(1) the Domestic Terminal Parking Garage with 5,100 
short-term public parking spaces, 140 valet-parking 
spaces, five limousine spaces, 1,100 Airport, airline 
and concession employee parking spaces not covered 
under File 01-1883 and 300 taxi parking spaces; 

(2) the International Terminal Parking Garage A with 
1,600 public parking spaces and 40 taxi parking 
spaces; 

(3) the International Terminal Parking Garage G with 
1,500 public parking spaces and 150 Airport, airline 
and concession employee parking spaces not covered 
under File 01-1883; 

(4) the Long-Term Parking Lot (Lot D) with 5,300 public 
parking spaces; and 

(5) the Airport Impound Lot 1 . 

The proposed operating agreement would cover a total of 
13,500 public parking spaces, 140 valet-parking spaces, 
five limousine parking spaces, 340 taxi parking spaces 
and 1,250 Airport, airline and concession employee 
parking spaces. 

The proposed resolution would award a parking operating 
agreement, including security guard and janitorial 
services, for the Domestic Terminal Parking Garage, the 
International Terminal Parking Garage A, the 
International Terminal Parking Garage G, the Long-Term 



1 Under the proposed operating agreement, Ampco would manage the Airport Impound Let. The 
Airport Impound Lot has 100 parking spaces for abandoned cars which are Ampco and kept 

in this locked parking lot. There are no public parking spaces in the A ■ 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Parking Lot (Lot D) and the Airport Impound Lot to 
Ampco System Parking (Ampco). 

Amount Payable by 

Airport to Ampco: Not to exceed $19,33S,354 during the first year of the 

proposed operating agreement from January 3. 2002 
through January 2, 2003. Attachment I, provided by the 
Airport, provides budget details for the estimated cost of 
$19,338,354 for the proposed operating agreement. 
Attachment II, provided by the Airport, provides budget 
details for the estimated management fee in the amount 
of $1,489,079 or 7.7 percent of the total estimated 
operating agreement costs of $19,338,354. 

In her October 24, 2001 memorandum to the Budget 
Analyst (Attachment III) Ms. Teresa Rivor of the Airport 
explains that the Airport is unable at this time to 
estimate the cost of the proposed operating agreement 
beyond the first year (the operator's agreement includes 
4-one year options to extend the agreement) "due to the 
current climate caused by the events of September 11, 
2001." 

According to the terms of the proposed operating 
agreement, the Airport Commission would be required to 
approve the Annual Cost Proposal prepared and 
submitted by Ampco to the Airport during the term of this 
agreement. This Annual Cost Proposal would include the 
management fee and estimated direct costs of operating 
the Airports' subject parking facilities. According to Ms. 
Rivor, the Annual Cost Proposal, and thus the contractual 
services costs for future years, could vary depending on 
the level of services required by the Airport. However, 
according to the terms of the proposed operating 
agreement, Ampco cannot incur any expenses for such 
parking operations unless and until the Airport 
Commission approves such expenses, which would occur 
on an annual basis (see Comment No. 5). 

In accordance with Section 6.3 of the proposed operating 
agreement, the management fee, which is estimated at 
$1,489,079 for the first year of tJ osed operating 

agreement, would increase by the percentage increase in 
the Consumer Price Index an F: mcisco 

3GARD OF SUPERVISE 
BUDGET ANALYST 
69 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Terxn of Operating 
Agreement: 



Comments: 



Metropolitan Area provided that the management fee 
cannot increase by more than four percent per year. 

January 3, 2002 through January 2, 2003 (one year). The 
term of the proposed operating agreement could be 
extended annually for up to four additional years on 
approval by the Airport Commission. Upon the expiration 
of the fourth one-year extension, the operating agreement 
may be further extended on a month-to-month basis. 
According to Section 3.2 of the proposed operating 
agreement, "Upon expiration of this Agreement, with the 
consent of the operator [Ampco], Director [of the Airport] 
may direct Operator to continue performance of the 
Services on a month-to-month basis, on the same terms 
and conditions of this Agreement, until such time as City 
has engaged another Operator. " 

At the Committee's meeting of 11/7/2001, the Budget 
Analyst had reported that in accordance with the terms of 
the proposed operating agreement as originally submitted 
to the Board of Supervisors, the agreement could have 
been extended indefinitely on a month-to-month basis 
without obtaining approval of the Board of Supervisors. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommended that the 
proposed operating agreement be amended to require 
Board of Supervisors approval to extend the agreement on 
a month-to-month basis for any period beyond 12 months 
subsequent to the expiration of the fourth one-year 
extension (see Comment No. 12). 

1. On June 5, 2001, the Airport Commission issued a 
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the subject 
management of the parking facilities operating agreement 
including the related security guard and janitorial 
services at the Airport. The Airport received Qualification 
Packages from five proposers, Five Star Parking, APCOA- 
Pacific Parking, Central Parking System, PRG Parking 
Management, LLC, and Ampco. Ms. Rivor states in 
Attachment III that Airport staff reviewed the five 
Qualification Packages and determined that PRG Parking 
Management, LLC, did not satisfy the minimum 
qualifications set forth in the RFQ And, thus, was not 
qualified to submit a proposal to Ms. Rivor 

further states in Attachment III t 3 four firms 

which submitted proposals, Ce; g System 



BOARD OF SUPERVISE 

BUDGET ANALYST 
70 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



submitted their proposal after the Proposal Submittal 
Deadline, and, thus, was disqualified from the evaluation 
process. As shown in Attachment III, the evaluation 
criteria included the firm's experience and qualifications, 
the proposed Senior Managers' experience, the quality of 
business, marketing and transition plans, financial ability 
to perform and the proposed management fee. 

2. The RFQ evaluation was based on a total of 500 
points, and the management fee was 150 points or 30 
percent of the total. Ms. Rivor reports that Five Star 
Parking submitted a proposed management fee bid of 
$964,866, the low bid, and APCOA-Pacific Parking 
submitted a proposed management fee of $1,922,000. 
Ampco's management fee bid of $1,489,079 was $524,213 
or 54.3 percent more than Five Star Parking's low 
management fee bid of $964,866. 

Overall, Five Star Parking received a rating of 421.55 
points, APCOA-Pacific Parking received a rating of 416.22 
points and Ampco received the highest rating of 437.46 
points. Attachment IV, provided by the Airport, shows the 
points given to Five Star Parking, APCOA-Pacific Parking 
and Ampco based on their written proposals and oral 
presentations. 

Because Ampco did not submit the lowest management 
fee bid, which exceeded the lowest management fee bid by 
$524,213 or 54.3 percent more than the Five Star Parking 
cost bid, the Budget Analyst considers approval of the 
proposed resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. Attachment V, provided by the Airport, lists the 
newspapers and media agencies where the Airport 
advertised this RFQ. 

4. On July 23, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution approving the Controller's certification that 
public parking management services at the Airport could 
continue to be practically performed by a private 
contractor at a lower cost for the year commencing July 1 
2001 than if the work we oyees 
(File 01-1188; 

BQA5.DO . 

bud : 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



5. The Controller's annual certification of costs is subject 
to Board of Supervisors approval for each of the up to four 
additional one-3 r ear extensions. 

6. In addition to the parking spaces at the Domestic 
Terminal Parking Garage, that Garage also includes 
4,000 square feet of office space for use by Ampco. The 
International Terminal Parking Garages A and G contain 
approximately 1,000 square feet each of office space for 
Ampco's use for satellite offices. 

7. Ms. Rivor reports that Ampco has provided parking 
management services to the Airport since 1991. The 
existing contract with the Airport to provide parking 
management services was a one-year contract that began 
on July 1, 1996 with four one-year extensions. The fourth 
one-year extension of this contract expired on June 30, 
2001. Ms. Rivor reports that Ampco has provided public 
parking management services since June 30, 2001 on a 
month-to-month basis, under the terms of the existing 
contract. 

8. According to Ms. Rivor, in calendar year (CY) 2000, 
the Airport generated $69,051,506 in revenues from the 
operation of the Airport's subject parking facilities. 
During the first three-quarters of CY 2001, or January 1, 
2001 through September 30, 2001, the Airport generated 
$47,905,175 in revenues from the operation of the 
Airport's subject parking facilities. Ms. Rivor reports that 
the Airport issues parking permits to airline and 
concession employees through their employers. Airport 
employees and employees of the parking facility operator 
do not pay to park in the Airports' subject parking 
facilities. 

9. Ms. Rivor reports that, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000-2001, 
the Airport paid $13,910,928 to Ampco, the present 
parking operator, including a management fee of 
$646,691 or 4.6 percent of total operating agreement 
costs. The proposed estimated management fee of 
$1,489,079 is $842,388 or 130.3 percent more than the 
previous management fee. The previous management fee 
was based on 4.6 percent of the total operating agreement 

J as compared to the pro • ; hich 

QF£U' : 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



is based on 7.7 percent of the total estimated operating 
agreement costs. The total estimated payment to Ampco 
under this new operating agreement of $19,338,354 is 
$5,427,426 or 39 percent more than the payment to 
Ampco in. FY 2000-2001. According to Ms. Rivor, the 
payment for FY 2000-2001 for parking management 
services under the existing contract with Ampco includes 
one full year of operation of the Domestic Terminal 
Parking Garage, the Long-Term Parking Lot (Lot D) and 
the Airport Impound Lot, but only six months of operation 
of the International Terminal Parking Garages A and G, 
which began operating in December of 2000. The proposed 
operating agreement includes the cost of one full year of 
operating the International Terminal Parking Garages A 
and G. 

10. Ms. Rivor advises that Ampco would subcontract to 
the following five firms: (a) American Building 
Maintenance for janitorial services at an estimated cost of 
$2,670,002 for the first year of the proposed operating 
agreement, (b) Cal State Patrol for security services at an 
estimated cost of $2,605,994 for the first year of the 
proposed operating agreement, (c) DAJA Inc. for the 
operation of the Long-Term Parking Lot (Lot D) and the 
operation of the valet service in the Domestic Terminal 
Parking Garage at an estimated cost of $1,213,751 for the 
first year of the proposed operating agreement, (d) Org 
Metrics for employee training for operators at an 
estimated cost of $17,850 for the first year of the proposed 
operating agreement, and (e) Mah and Associates for 
accounting services at an estimated cost of $17,850 for the 
first year of the proposed operating agreement. The 
subcontract cost of $6,525,447 is included in the operating 
agreement budget of $19,338,354. 

11. File 01-1183, also being considered by the Finance 
Committee at its meeting of November 28, 2001, pertains 
to the Airport's proposed contract award to Pacific Park 
Management to provide Airport, airline, and concession 
employee parking management services at the Airport. 

12. Based on the Finance Committee's req - est ;hat the 
Budget Analyst's recomme: v:. the 
Airport has amended the : : . - - Lriesment 
by adding a provision whicl "isors 

BOARD OF SUPER'- i 



RET ANA] 
73 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

approval prior to the Airport Commission and Ampco 
agreeing to extend the operating agreement on a month- 
to-month basis for any period beyond 12 months 
subsequent to the expiration of the fourth one-year 
extension. 

13. At its November 7, 2001 meeting, the Finance 
Committee requested additional information from the 
Airport on the scoring criteria used to evaluate the 
management fees proposed by Five Star Parking, APCOA- 
Pacific Park and Ampco. In response to the Finance 
Committee's request, Mr. Peter Nardoza of the Airport 
states in his memorandum of November 15, 2001 to the 
Finance Committee (Attachment VI), "...in both the 
written and oral scoring criteria panelists were asked to 
evaluate several decisive factors of the (management) fee 
including areas of savings, fee breakdown, overhead 
profit, salaries and insurance premiums as part of the 
management fee score-not simply the fee amount itself." 
Attachment VI includes the scoring sheets used by the 
panelists during the evaluation process. The Budget 
Analyst requested that the Airport respond as to why 
Ampco received higher scores in the proposal stage of 27 
and 22 points from panelists C and D respectively for 
Ampco's management fee as compared to the Five Star 
Parking's lower scores of 25 and 15 from panelists C and 
D respectively (see Attachment IV, page 3), even though 
Ampco's management fee of $1,489,079 was $524,213 or 
54.3 percent more than Five Star Parking's management 
fee of $964,866. In response to the Budget Analyst's 
inquiry, Ms. Widener states that "This is simply not a 
question that can be answered beyond restating Mr. 
Nardoza's memo of November 15, 2001." 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors, as noted in Comment No. 2. 



rtLLrtc ran en c x 



Attachment 5 
2001/02 PROPOSED AUTOMOBILE PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES BUDGET 



sudset Line Hen 




Cashiers 

Computer 7ecr.nicia.ns 
Customer Service Manager 
Customer Service Attendants 
Gareca Supervisors 

Inventory Lot Checkers 
Office Staff 
Stationary Engineers 
Valet Attendants 

Tc:al Payroll 

Payroll Tax 
Employee Benefits 

Total Payroll Overhead 

To Lai Personnel Costs 

Advertising 

Bank Charges 

Computer Maintenance 

Contract Services 

Facilitiss Modifications & Equipment 

Janrtonal Services 

Laundry and Uniforms 

Legal Services 

Lian Fees 

Management Fee 

Office Expenditures 

Operating Expenses 

Payroll & AP Processing Charges 

Refunds & Fee Adjustments 

Revenue Control Tickets and Forms 

Security and Traffic Control 

Telephone/Communication Expenditures 

Training and Seminars 

Total Other Expenses 

Grand Toial 



S4.02S.94S 

$138,090 
$49,070 
S177.910 
SI, 3 13/92 
$426,420 
S775.21S 
S231.057 
S322.230 



S7.513.440 

$641,4e6- 
S1 ,798,870 



52.440.355 



.795 



$12,000 

$1,083,200 

$100,000 

$55,300 

$225,000 

52,670,002 

$67,000 

$10,500 

$32.6=5 

$1,489,079 

$55,800 

$403,133 

$10,000 

$33,000 

$232,558 

S2.785,4ei 

$33,600 

£50.250 



S3.334.558 



; 9.333.35* 



p ubic Parking 






Appendix B-l 

Management Fee Schedule 

Proposed Annual 
Fee Components Fee Components 

General Manager: 
Assistant General Manager: 
Office Manager: 
Operations Manager(s): 
Accounting Manager: 
Facilities Manager: 

Compensation Subtotal: 

Premiums : 
Required insurance: 

Workers' Compensation S 525,619 

Commercial General Liability S 69,653 

Business Automobile Liability S 23,217 

Garage Keeper's Legal Liability S 4,000 

Burglary and Robbery S 1.500 

Required deposit and fidelity bonds 

Premiums Subtotal 

Overhead and profit : 

Total Proposed Annual Management Fee: 



s 


77.535 


s 


57.098 


s 


45.000 


s 


99.929 


s 


52.370 


s 


52.715 


s 


334,748 


s 


623,989 



S 


56,342 


5 


680,331 


S 


424.000 


s 


1,489.079 



Append, F -2 : ' ; 

Oo;r2Tj Management of the public Parking Fac 




San Francisco International Airport 



VTA FACSIMILE TO 415-252-0461 



9.0.EOH SOS? 

Zzr, F.-a.-.clscc.CA 9^125 
Tel £50.321.5003 
Fax €50.821.5005 
wvfw.flysfo.con 



COMMISSION 

CITY /in: COUNT"! 
0« -.Ah FRANCISCO 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 



October 24, 2001 

Ms. Anna LaForte 

Board of Supervisors, Finance Committee 

Teresa Rivor A$\ ^JiYl 

Airport Concession Development and Management 

Airport Public Parking Facilities Operating Agreement 



Per your request. I am providing to you the chronological events for this Airport Public 
hekm i. kman Parking Facilities Request for Qualification/ Proposal. 



LARftr MAZZOLA 
Viet rP.CSIBCHT 



c«»tL s. ir«UH:»r» 



IOKN L. MARTIN 

/iioeoer otnccron 



° RequestTor Qualification/Proposal Issued October 1, 2000 

• Informational Conference advertised See Attachment 2 
Press release sent See Anachment 3 

°. Informational Conference Date October 25, 2000 

" Commission Approval Final Issuance of RFP February 6, 2001 

• Final Request for Proposal Issued March I. 2001 

• Request for Proposal advertised See Attachment 2 
Press release sent See Anachment 3 

In accordance with the Final Request for Proposal, the selection process was a two-sU2e 
Drocess: 



Qualification Stage : On or before die Qualification Package Deadline, all interested 
Proposers must submit Qualification Packages, evidencing their satisfaction of the 
minimum qualification requirements specified (Attachment 1). Airpon staff 'will 
review the submission to determine whether the Proposer satisfies the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements. This is a "pass/fail" determination, and no scoring is dons 
at this stage. As to those Proposers who satisfy such Minimum Qualification 
Requirements, Airport staff will recommend that the Airport Commission "short list" 
such Proposers and invite them to submit Proposal Packages. 



- u a^e 2 of ] 



Ms. Ar.r.a Ijronc 
O-o'wr 2A.20O1 



Proposal Stage : The Airpon will notify these Proposers who are "short-listed" and 
invite them to submit Proposa] Packages. A panel will review the Proposal Packages 
in accordance with the evaluation criteria to determine the most responsible and 
responsive Proposer. A five-member panel consisting of industry expens from other 
.Airports, other parlcing business, and Airpon Staff was selected to participate in the 
selection process. The panel members were: 

o Lester Patilla, Port of Oakland 

c Eugene Choy, Airport Commission 

o Robert Weinberg, Marketplace Development 

o Kathy Hausler. San Jose International Airport 

o Stephen Gordon, Airport Commission 

Evaluation Criteria : The evaluation criteria used to rani; all qualified proposers are as 
follows: 

o Firm's Experience and Qualifications 20 points 

o Proposed Senior Managers' Experience 20 points 

o Quality of Business. Marketing and Transition Plans 15 points 

o Financial Ability to Perform 15 points 

o Management Fee 30 points 

Total 100 points 

The points were weighed 70% based on the written Proposal. 30% based on the 
Presentation/Interview. Only the top four proposers, based on written Proposals, were 
invited to participate in the Presentation/Interview of the process. 



HRC and Airport staff participated in the entire process up to and including observing the 
oral presentations as we]J as reviewing all the final score tabulations. 



Chronology of Final Phase of the Selection Process 

Anril30. 2001 

Tne Airpon received Qualification Packages from five proposers: 

e Five Star Parlcing 

6 APCOA-Pacific Parking - A Join: Venture of APCOA and Pacific Park 

Management. Inc. 
° Central Parting System 
° PRG Parking Managsmenu LLC 
» AMPCO System Parking 

After staff reviewed ail the subn; ietennined that four of the Proposers satisfv 

the Minimum Qualification Requ ~'h in the RFQ/P. PRG ?£l 

Management, LLC did not satisf juaJifJcati 



Attachment IT 
-^a^e 3 of 5 



Vs. Am 


« Lirors 


Ocicbtr 


2*. 2001 


Page 3 




June 


1.2001 



Airport Commission approved the "short-list" and invited the qualified proposers to submit 
proposals. These proposers were: 

• Five Star Parking 

° APCOA-Pacific Park Parking - A Joint Venture of APCOA and Pacific Park 
Management, Inc. 

Central parking System 

• Arnpco System Parking 

July 2. 2001 

The Airport received four Proposals from the previously approved "short-list*'. However. 
Central Parking System submitted its proposal after the Proposal Submittal Deadline. 
Therefore their Proposal was returned un-opened. 

Julv 5. 2001 

A five-member panel consisting of subject matter experts in the parking industry 

completed the review and rating. 

July 18.2001 

To conclude the final step in the RFQ/P process, the proposers were invited to an oral 

presentation before the five-member panel. 

The final tabulation of tile scores and the ranking is as follows: 

• Ampco Parking System 437.46 

• Five Star Parking 421.55 

• APCOA-Pacific Parking 416.22 

August 2. 2001 

HRC completed its review and all three firms, directly or through good faith efforts, 
achieved the minority-owned business enterprise (MBE) and woman-owned business 
enterprise (WBE) sub-consulting goals for the contract. Further. APCOA -Pacific 
Parking - A Joint Venture of APCOA and Pacific Park Management, Jnc. requested a 5% 
rating bonus; however, the HRC determined that it does not quaiify for such bonus. 

Based on the qualification and scores, Ampco was deemed the best responsive and 
responsible proposer. 

October 2. 2001 

Ampco Parking System was awarded the Airport Public Parking Facilities Operating 
Agreement for one year with four one-year options to extend the term (see "Resolution No. 
01-0303" previ o the Boa 






-attachment Ii" 
Pa°-e 4 6T 5 



^is. Anna Lsfon: 
Ocr.ob-r 2 i, 2001 

Tit: 4 



Annual Cost Proposal 



four request for the projections of the Annual Cost Proposals for the four one-year options 
are not available at this time due to the current climate caused by the events of 
September 11, 2001. Please be assured that we will return to the Board of Supervisors 
each year to obtain Proposidon J approvals. 

In drafting the finaJ Operating Agreement, staff and the City Attorney's Office ensured that 
a number of controls were in place, such ?-s: 

In accordance with Section 6.3 Management Fee Adjustment of the Operating Agreement: 

(a) If and to the extent City exercises the options(s) to extend the term of this Agreement, 
the Management Fee for the extension term(s) shall be increased in the same 
proportion as the increase in the C?0 at such time as compared to the CPI on the 
commencement date of this Agreement. However, the increases provided for in this 
Section shall be limited to four percent (4%) per annum. 

(b) In the event City expands or contracts the Facilities to include or exclude any new or 
existing parking facilities, the Management Fee shall be adjusted to reflect: (i) the 
actual increases or decreases in the salaries of the Parking Senior Staff necessary for 
such expanded or contracted Facilities, and the premiums for the insurance, bonds, 
and deposits required hereunder and (ii) a pro rata adjustment (based on number of 
parking spaces) in the "overhead and profit" component of the Management Fee. In 
no event will the Management be adjusted for the mere increase or decrease in the 
number of parking spaces in any Facilities. 

Section 6.2 Compensation Structure of the Operating Agreement, 

Compensation payable by City to Operator hereunder comprises the Management Fes 
and the Actual Direct Costs. On or before November of each year, Operator shall 
submit to City for City's approval the Annual Cost Proposal for the upcoming year, in 
form satisfactory to Director. The Annual Cost Proposal shall set forth the 
Management Fee and estimated Actual Direct Costs. Operator shall incur no 
expenses under this Agreement unless and until the Annual Cost Proposal has been 
approved, in writing, by Director. Compensation payable to Operator shall be limited 
each year by the amounts set forth in the approved Annual Cost prosopsal. C'rty shall 
have no obligation to pay any invoice which indicates that an expense item exceeds, 
or is projected to exceed, the amount therefore specified in the Airport-aoproved 
Annual Cost Proposal. The approved Annual Cost Proposal for initial one (1) year 
term of this Agreement is set forth in Appendix B-2. "Annual Cost Proposal" , is also 
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. In the 
event that the City exercises the options to extend the term of the Agreement, for each 
such extension period, Operator shall be required to submit a Annual Cost Proposal in 
a form that is satisfactory to Director. 

Section 1.17 Management 3 

The "Overhead and :'■ '■".: :;;< 

percent (3%) of the Annua 1 Cos - - . If and to 



--'-n-c.cr.mer.c 111 
Pa.ce d or d 



M:. Awin; Larons 
October 24. 2001 



the extent the aggregate salaries of the Parking Senior Staff are less than the amounts 
described on Appendix 3, then the Management Fee shall be reduced accordingly. 

I hope this satisfies your requirements to proceed before the Board of Supervisors. If you 

require additional information, please call rne at (650) 821-4500. 



X-'CDMYTENAK iSW.ISC\M=MOS\3oS Public ?knz.6o: 






Attachment iV 
u a.^e 1 o.t 3 



C3 w 



0. 

y 

< 
< 

© 

2 

< 





o LO 


lO 


© 


J 


to 




(3 


<N O 


in 






to 




2 




OS 






M 




b£ 


<M — 


■<? 






<» 




K 














< 












& 














k 














< 














ft 














UJ 












> 
























u. 















f 



3 

o 



a 



_1 « 


^ 


2 


<'£ 


2 


O 


s- 





_! 


0. _! 


B. 


< 


o =5 


o 


f= 


K € 


0£ 


o 


& 


X 


1= 



public Parting Openilrrs Agr&omon'. 



FIVE STAR PARK1HG APCCA-PAClFIC PaSK 



ORAL PRESENTATION 



Attachment IV 
Pa^e Z of 3 



QuetOan 1 




16.00 


20 00 


QL«slion 2 




20.00 


JO. 00 


Question 2 




10.00 


1000 


Cujcben * 




lice 


15.00 


Ciusxlion. S 




15.00 


15.00 


O-jesSon 6 


SuD-WSJ 


15.00 


10.00 




Si .oo 


9C.0O 


Pen^lliil B 








OuotBot 1 




18.00 


18.00 


Question 2 




15.00 


ig.co 


QjsrSon 3 




10.00 


10.00 


Qjcsfton 4 




15.00 


14.00 


C'iJSS"jon S 




1.4.00 


15 CO 


Quecijon 6 


Sub-total 


19.00 


18. CO 




95.00 


94.00 


j5££!S-£ 








0>-«J«or 1 




19.00 


1950 


Qu96l)on 2 




19.00 


16.50 


Qusibon 3 




10.00 


10.00 


OuccSon i 




KOO 


13.00 


Ojestio 5 




u.oo 


15.00 


Quarfor, C 




17.50 


20 00 




Suh -total 


sj.so 


B5.0C 


Pjr\?lbl D 








Ouostjon 1 




12.00 


20,00 


Question J 




10.00 


1900 


Quoebcn 3 




10.00 


9.00 


Qi^»ian i 




12.00 


15.00 


Citation 5 




12.00 


1S.0D 


QuMOon. 6 




13.00 


16.00 




Sukxo-ol 


en.co 


se.oo 


Panelist E 








Question. 1 




18.00 


1700 


Que** on S 




IS 00 


20.00 


QueiOon 3 




Z 00 


8.00 


Quecdon « 




14 00 


15.00 


Question S 




13.00 


1S.00 


OuetfUon 8 


Sub-tomJ 


1600 
85.00 


12.00 
67.00 



2O.C0 
16.00 

a. oo 
i5.00 
15.00 
15.00 



se.oc 



18.00 
15.00 
500 
1200 
1S.O0 
1S.00 



79.00 



17.50 
17.50 
10.00 
16.00 
1a. 50 
20.00 



SA50 



12.00 
10.00 
6.00 
B.OO 
9.09 
U.OO 



16.00 
17.00 
B.OO 
15.00 
1^.00 
15. DO 



8T.00 



TQTAJU • P<>OEpS&l STAG£ 
PenetitrtA 
p^flgto 6 
Panels c 

-.■■-/'■-.' '- 
Panel's! c 



Subtotal 

RAW SCO»S X WT4 WEIGHT V 



9 1. 00 
J5.00 
93.50 
69.00 

SS.00 



4SA.50 





90.00 




88.00 




94.00 




T9.60 




Sfl.00 




84 50 




96.00 




53.00 




87.00 




e?oo 




4S3.00 




ojisa 




138.M 


II ' 


122.25 j 



PubUc Porting Opsra'.tng Agrfrftmom 



Attachment IV 
fape j of. 3 



Prcpa&al Stage 



FIN/E STAR PARKINS 



ftPCOJr-PAOFIC PAAK 




ie.oo 

16.00 
15 00 
1S.O0 

27.00 



20.00 
12.00 
12.00 

15.00 
17.00 



21.00 

20.00 

9.00 

15.00 



81.00 



73.00 



&a.oo 



gansfea B 

008111X10 1 

Qu»0on 4 
Qi.^i&yi 5 



1300 
17.00 
V.OO 
15O0 
30.00 



17.00 
16.00 
12.00 
15.00 



20.00 
20.00 
15.00 
15.00 

25.00 



26. CO 



05.00 



Question 1 
Quorfon 2 
Question 3 
Question 4 
Oj«afen 5 



16 00 

17 00 
13.00 



It. 00 
13.00 
14.00 
1<00 

26.00 



19.00 
19.00 

1-t.GO 
1400 
27.00 



$0.00 



QuBfrfci 1 
Question 1 
QuasBon 2 

QuesSon 5 



20.00 

u.oo 
e.oo 

1S.00 
15.00 



20.00 
•16.00 
11.00 
15.00 

15.00 



20.00 
20.oo 

11 00 
15.00 
22.00 



72.00 



77.00 



*5 00 



EflatiiM e 

Question I 
Quesb'on 2 

GuejUon 3 
OuesBDn 4 
Qb»S(1cn 5 



15.S0 
17.00 

e.so 

13.00 
27.CO 



17.67 
16.00 
12.50 
12.S0 
11.50 



U.80 
19.50 
13.00 
15.00 

20.00 



72 17 



ee.3 



TOTAL. PROPOSAL STAGS 








Psneiisi fl 


91.00 




76.00 


Ponoliis E 


64.00 




eo.co 


Panslisie 


65.00 




90.00 


PaneM ' 


72.00 




77.00 


Ponelisl E 


82.00 




71.17 


Sub^^.l 


*1S.OO 




3SG.17 


PJiW S£OR" X 70°/. WEIGHT [° 


2i-.j:-c j 


! 


J7T,M | 



49.00 
05.00 
S3. 00 

es.co 

85.30 
150.30 



Pape I of 3 



Attachment 2 
PUBLICATIONS 



Asian Week 

China Press 

Chinese Times 

El Latino 

El Reportero 

New Bayview 

Philippine News 

San Francisco Bay Times 

Small Business Exchange 



Attachment V 
Pape 2 of 3 



Attachment 3 
MEDIA LIST 



--•-■--'- ; ' ~ - - 1 - - ^. ■--..■'--- -- - ~ -- -■- .:-■ 



- ■•- ■»■--•- ■'-■- "■ 



:--■-■■— ■ ■ ■ - 



Bay City San Francisco 

Bay City News RWC 

K1CU 

KPIX 

KNTV 

KOFY 

KQED 

KGO AM 

Channel 26 

KC8S AM 

KFRC AM 

Marin Independent 

Oakland Tribune 

FC Progress 

Daily Review 

San Jose Mercury News 

Millbrae Sun 

San Bruno Herald 

KTVU 

San Mateo Times 

KGO TV 

Independent News Group 

San Francisco Chronicle 

San Francisco Examiner 

KRON TV 

Associated Press 

KFOG 

Channel 14 

Menlo Park Almanac 



San Francisco Independent 
BOUTVLGR 
USA Today 
KFOX 

AAA Public Relations 
Fox News 
Channel 56 
Public Works 
Travel Info 
Travel Weekly 
Reuters News 
Lisa Paul 
AAAE 
Channel 48 
Wall Street Journal 
Muni Facts 
Moody's Investor 
NY Bloomberg News 
NJ Bloomberg News 
SF Bloomberg News 
Aviation Daily 
ACI Airport Week 
Airport Report 
Travel Nev/s Asia 
- ir Finance Journal 
Airports North America 
Metro Traffic 
Contra Costa Times 
nia Airport 



Pan Asia Venture 

Sing Tao Daiiy 

Kyodo News 

India West 

Air Reporter 

AAMC 

San Francisco Visitor's 

Convention Center 



Pap.e 3 of 3 



Ac—chmeai J 
Ps«2 



SFCVB Tokyo 
SFCV3 Shanghai 
Columbus Travel Guide 
Aerc international 
World journal 
Russian News 
American Journal 
Channel 22 



c bCWaMt 



j-nu t. .vr,i-n, 




San Francisco Intsrnaxional Airport 



f Box 8097 
San Francisco, CA !M12 
Tel 650.621 5000 
Ftt 6S0.S21.S005 

November 15, 2001 «« JW ^ 



TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mark Leno, Chair 
Hon. Aaron Peskin, Vice-Chair 
Hon. Matt Gonzalez, Committee Member 

a'-'-o-.t cc: Harney Rose, Budget Analyst 

COMMISSION 

.ll'lTl-0 FR0M: Peter Nard02a . Deputy Director, Public Affairs 

" - **•»< •■• SUBJECT: Parking Facility Contract Follow-up 

At the November 7, 2001 Finance Committee meeting committee members 
requested additional information on the scoring criteria for the public parking contract 
at the Airport, particularly as ft related to the proposed management fee. Attached for 
your review, please find a copy of the scoring sheets for both the written proposals 
and oral presentations. 

Please note where the related management fee criteria have been flagged for your 
attention, in both the written and oral scoring criteria panelists were asked to evaluate 
several decisive factors of the fee including areas of savings, fee breakdown, 
overhead profit, salaries and insurance premiums as part of the management fee 
score - not simply the fee amount itself. 

Panelists were instructed to review the proposals independently of each other. 

I trust these clarifications address your concerns. Please feel free to contact me or 
Cathy Widener, Government Affairs Administrator at 650-821-5023 should you 
require additional information. 



Attachment V I 
Face 2 oF~5 



San Francisco International Airport 

Public Parking Facilities Operating Agreement 



INSTRUCTIONS TQ PANELIST 

Enclosed are the questions to be given to the three qualified proposers competing for the 
Airport's Public Parking Facilities Operating Agreement. Each proposer will have 15 minutes at 
the beginning of the interview to make an oral presentation. After the proposer's presentation is 
over, the panel will have 45 minutes remaining to ask the attached questions. 

After the interview is completed, you will have 15 minutes to finish the scoring sheet. After the 
three interviews are completed, please initial each page and sign the last page of the score sheet. 

On behalf of the Airport, thank you for taking the time to participate in the selection process for 
this project. 






SS 



/* --acruT.ent v l 
Vap.e 3 of 6 



San Francisco International Airport 
Public Parking Facilities Operating Agreement 

Proposer: Panelist: 



Oral Presentation = 20 points maximum Points: 



All proposers arc to give an introduction, at the commencement of the 60-mixiute oral interview, 
to make introductory statements/presentation The Proposers have been advised that this 
presentation should address the following: 

(1) Proposer's experience and qualifications to operate the Airport Public Parking 
Operating Agreement. 

(2) Introduction of the local management team and their qualifications to operate and 
manage the project. 

(3) Proposer's experience in similar projects. 

(4) Proposer's experience with modern parking control technology. 



Signature: Date: July 18, 2001 



'.j-llTwnp'PjOleP^Gyseti— JulyiCOi aez 



Attachment VI 
Pase 4 of 6 



>an Francisco 



rnationa! 



Proposer: 



Panelist: 



Interview Questions = 80 points maximum 



lotal Points: 



(1) On a Sunday afternoon, one of the key garages is full, vehicle exit 
queues are quickly getting longer and the revenue and credit card 
systems both go off-line. The Airport Duty Manager is putting a 
lot of pressure on you to solve the problem. What is your 
response to this situation? 



Points: 

(maximum 
points = 20) 



(2) Referring to one of your large airport management contracts that 
you had and lost in recent years, please describe the reasons why 
you were not able to retain the contract. 



Points: 

(maximum 

points = 10) 



(3) Due to the economic downturn and increased competition from 
off-site operators, Airport parking revenue has recently declined. 
Planned transit improvements including BART may exacerbate 
that trend. How would you reverse that trend? 




(4) Describe briefly how you plan to carry the transition and start-up 
expenses for this project. 



Points: 

(maximum 

points = 15) 



(5) Understanding that the management fee is negotiable, please 
describe for us which parts of your proposed management fee 
could be adjustable? 



Points: 

(maximum 
points = 30) 



Signature: , 



Date: July 18, 2001 



■ 






Attachment VJ 
Page b of 6 — 



M 

B 
•-S 



a -= 






2? 



$ 



•o 2 



e 



CO 



■s -c 



< !r 



e " 



i °-& 



a 3 



^ o > 



LL O = 
^ "t f- 



o g-^E 



.^ c _: o 



LU 



^ T 



a 



1 



s 


5 




?1 






S 


J3 


a 


0? 


*s 


'.') 


l£ 


g 


a 


-5 


- 


D. 


-'j 


—j 



E£ 



1' C £ 



2 Si 

S e c 

^ u © 

, © e/> >2 

> « £ 

"S en w 

> ® V 

s 55 a 

p 



m c <= ^ 






T-r 





s 




cr 


s 


ra c 


,c 


o 


v) io oj 




Q. 

o 


°-3 0)- 


.= 


>- 


o.E a o 


e 

> 


.~ 


-T c cr £ 


c 


3 

CO 


CO £_ © CP 


r 


•o 

C 

co 


§ "5 5 'as 
hi " ro"; 


o 
B 
< 




C n - C o 


© 


5 


.3 

CO 


« - -gr- 
ew o © 


O) 





r3 

a 


e *o © ~ 

Q C © O) 

E.2 £2 


(-7 

to 


cr 


O O O 4) 


c 


> 


OS 


1" £ * | 

3 5 3 rc 


> 


- 


1 


~ 


<.' 


< < < E 


< 




O 






CO 





« o o 




o 










T 






_ 
















UL 









a 



r>5 « 



0) "D ^ 




Attachment VI 
Page 6 of 6 



n 



3 



5 

CO 



! 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 01-1552 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Hetch Hetchy 

Item: Hearing to consider a request to release reserved funds in the 

amount of $25,000,000 for the purchase of electrical power for 
resale for the remainder of FY 2001-2002. 

Description: Hetch Hetchy's FY 2001-2002 budget, as approved by the 

Board of Supervisors, includes an appropriation of $48,300,000 
for the purchase of electrical power for resale to Hetch Hetchy 
customers. The Board of Supervisors placed $25,000,000 of the 
$48,300,000 on reserve pending a report from Hetch Hetchy on 
the outlook for the purchase of electrical power during FY 
2001-2002. 

The $48,300,000 budget amount for purchase of electrical 
power represented an increase of $26,668,790 or 123.3 percent, 
from the original FY 2000-2001 budget for the purchase of 
electrical power of $21,631,210. However, during FY 2000- 
2001, Hetch Hetchy also obtained approval from the Board of 
Supervisors of a supplemental appropriation of $25,400,000 for 
the purchase of electrical power, in addition to the original 
budgeted amount of $21,631,210, resulting in a total FY 2000- 

2001 appropriation of $47,031,210. Therefore, the FY 2001- 

2002 appropriation of $48,300,000 for the purchase of electrical 
power is $1,268,790 or 2.7 percent more than the FY 2000- 
2001 appropriation of $47,031,210. 

As of October 31, 2001, Hetch Hetchy had expended 
$19,840,810 1 for the purchase of electrical power, or 41.1 
percent of the $48,300,000 FY 2001-2002 budget. Based on this 
rate of expenditure, Mr. Kingsley Okereke, Director of Finance 
for the Public Utilities Commission reports that Hetch Hetchy 
estimates that total expenditures for FY 2001-2002 will be 
$46,689,350. The Budget Analyst has reviewed the PUC's 
expenditure projection and concurs with the estimate. 



1 This amount is net i /:arket electrical power sales. Hetch Hetchy sells power on the spot 

market when the c &] of contractual power purcha: -r an i Hetch Hetchy's own generation 

of hydroelectric poi :.:r.ount of electrical powe. :- and 



contractual sales. 



-"oardofSupef/ ; 
Budget 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

The PUC projection for FY 2001-2002 of $46,689,350 in total 
expenditures for the purchase of electrical power is $1,610,650 
less than the $48,300,000 amount budgeted for such purchases 
in FY 2001-2002. However, according to Mr. Okereke, the PUC 
requests that the full amount of $25,000,000 be released by the 
Finance Committee because a) additional spot market 
purchases may be necessary if Hetch Hetchy generates less 
hydroelectric power than anticipated due to dry weather 
conditions; and b) Hetch Hetchy may not be able to realize 
total revenues from the sale of excess power presently 
estimated at $3,478,860 in FY 2001-2002, again due to less 
hydroelectric power generation due to dry weather conditions. 

Comments: 1. Hetch Hetchy has traditionally purchased power from 

wholesale sources to meet its contractual obligations for the 
sale of electric power to its customers when it is unable to 
generate sufficient electric power from its hydro-electric power 
generation facilities. In FY 2000-2001, the price for such power 
on the spot market increased from a range of $20 to $40 per 
megawatt hour to $200 to $300 per megawatt hour. As noted 
above, Hetch Hetchy required a supplemental appropriation of 
$25,400,000 in FY 2000-2001 to meet the increased 
expenditures resulting from the increased cost of such power 
on the spot market. 

In May of 2001, the City entered into a contract with Calpine 
Energy Services, LP for the purchase of electric power. The 
contract with Calpine Energy Services was intended to hedge 
against the extremely high prices for wholesale electric power 
over the next five years. The term of the contract was five 
years, commencing on July 1, 2001 and ending on June 30, 
2006. The shortage of supply that resulted in the increase in 
the price of wholesale electric power during FY 2000-2001 was 
expected to continue for up to three years, with lower prices in 
years four and five, according to PUC testimony to the Board 
of Supervisors during the Board's consideration of the 
proposed contract, with Calpine Energy Services. 

Under the provisions of the Calpine contract, the City is 
required to purchase 50 megawatt hours of electric power on a 
continuous basis. The price of this purchase is a) SI 15 per 
gawatt hour for the period of July 1, r trough 

E member 31, 2001, and b) $75.25 per megawatt hour for the 
:>d of January 1, 2002 thro. 

Board of Supervee -: 
Budget Anal 
95 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



For Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the City will be required to 
purchase a total of 438,000 megawatt hours at a total cost of 
$41,664,750. Over the five-year term of the contract, the City 
will be required to purchase a total of 2,190,000 megawatt 
hours at a total cost of $173,502,750. The average price per 
megawatt hour that the City is required to purchase is $79,225 
under the Calpine Energy Services Contract. 

2. Since the approval of the Calpine Energy Services contract, 
the price of wholesale electric power has fallen dramatically, 
due in part to reduced demand for electricity and mild weather 
during the summer months. Power generation and supply has 
also increased since the first six months of calendar year 2001. 
According to Ms. Laurie Park, General Manager of Hetch 
Hetchy, the futures price for wholesale electric power for the 
fourth quarter of 2001 is $30 per megawatt hour. Also, at this 
time, the futures price for wholesale electric power for calendar 
year 2002 is $45 per megawatt hour according to Ms Park. 

If the City had been able to enter into a five year contract for 
the purchase of electric power at an average price of $45 per 
megawatt hour instead of $79,225 per megawatt hour, the 
price for the Calpine contract, the full cost would have been 
$98,550,000, or $74,952,750 less than the $173,502,750 cost for 
the Calpine contract. 

3. On November 13, 2001, the Board of Supervisors Audit, 
Labor and Governmental Efficiency Committee held a hearing 
on the Calpine Energy Services Contract. The Public Utilities 
Commission reported to the Audit, Labor and Governmental 
Efficiency Committee at that time that the City is currently in 
discussion with Calpine in an attempt to reduce the high cost 
of electrical power the City must purchase under the contract 
in the future. The PUC stated at that time that they will 
report back to the Board of Supervisors on any results that 
may be produced from such discussions. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

4. The Budget Analyst recommends approval of the requested 
release of reserve of $25,000,000 based on the PUC's projected 
FY 2001-2002 total Hetch Hetchy expenditures for the 
purchase of electrical power of $46,689,350. Although the 
projected amount of $46,689,350 is $1,610,350 less than the FY 
2001-2002 appropriation amount of $48,300,000, and therefore 
a potential reduction of $1,610,350 to this request of 
$25,000,000 could be made, the Budget Analyst concurs with 
the PUC that such a reduction should not be made at this time 
in order to provide Hetch Hetchy with added flexibility if dry 
weather conditions occur as explained above. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of $25,000,000 for purchase of 
electrical power. 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



-3RVISGRS 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell 



Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, December 05, 2001 



9:00 AM 
Rescheduled Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 9:08 a.m. 
012123 [Recanvassing of November and December 2000 Elections] 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing to consider the possible recanvassing of the November 2000 and December 2000 elections by the 

Department of Elections. 

12/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for the December 5, 2001, 

meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Tammy Director. Department of Elections; Bill Lee. City Administrator; 
Chad Jacobs, Deputy City Attorney; Edward Harrington, Controller; Chris Bowman, former member, Citizens 
Advisory Committee on Elections; Male Speaker; Charlie Marsteller; Male Speaker. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



011818 [Reserved Funds, Human Resources Department] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources (Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget), 
in the amount of $15,260,220 to fund the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP) on 
reserve for six months. (Human Resources Department) 

1 1/9/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the November 28, 2001 
meeting. 

Speakers: None. 

Continued to December 12, 2001, meeting. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at .1:10 PM on .1 3'04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes December 5, 2001 



012039 [Reserved Funds, Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector (Fiscal Year 2000-01 

Budget), in the amount of 51,162,050 to fund its Business Tax System (PTRSYS 00) Project. (Treasurer-Tax 

Collector) 

1 1/20/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be scheduled for consideration, preferably 

at the December 5, 2001 meeting. 

Heard in Committee: Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Susan Leal, Treasurer. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $1,107,486 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



01 1929 [Lease of Real Property] 

Resolution authorizing extension and amendment of a lease of real property at 1 145 Market Street for the 
Department of Human Resources. (Real Estate Department) 

(District 6.) 

10/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee: Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Administrative Services Department. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



LITIGATION 



Conference with City Attorney 

[Convene in Closed Session] 

Motion that the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors convene in closed session with the City 
Attorney, under the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and Administrative Code Section 67. . 
(3), for the purpose of conferring with, or receiving advice from, the City Attorney regarding proposed 
settlements in the lawsuits or claims listed below. 

Unanimous vote to convene in closed session by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:10 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes December 5, 2001 



012079 [Settlement of Lawsuit] 

Ordinance approving settlement of the lawsuit filed by the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission, against CalStar Retail, Inc., by payment by CalStar Retail Inc. to the City in 
the amount of $350,000 and other terms; the lawsuit was filed on August 7, 2001, in San Mateo County 
Superior Court, Case No. 417869, entitled City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission v. CalStar Retail, Inc. (City Attorney) 

(Supervisor Peskin dissenting in Committee) 

1 1/27/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the 
December 5, 2001 meeting. 

The Finance Committee requests that the Board hear this item in closed session. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Maxwell 
Noes: 1 - Peskin 



Report on Closed Session 



Deputy City Attorney Ted Lakey reported that the Finance Committee has met in closed session with the City 
Attorney, under the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and Administrative Code Section 67.8 
(3), for the purpose of conferring with, or receiving advice from, the City Attorney regarding settlements in the 
lawsuits or claims listed above. 



[Elect Not to Disclose] 

Motion that the Committee finds that it is in the best interest of the public that the Committee elect at this time 
not to disclose its closed session deliberations concerning the anticipated litigation listed above. 

Unanimous vote not to disclose discussion to the public by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 

ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 3:10 PM on 3/3/04 



).35 



5/0/ 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 

November 29, 2001 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: < Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 2 -File 01-1818 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



DOCUMENTS D EPT 

Df C - ♦ 233) 
SAN FftA Nc)sco 



Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Hearing to request release of $15,260,220 placed on 
reserve in the Department of Human Resources FY 
2001-2002 budget by the Board of Supervisors to 
fund six months of salaries and fringe benefits for 
the period from January 1, 2002 through June 30, 
2002 for 276 Special Assistant positions which were 
preliminarily allocated into new management 
classifications under the Citywide Management 
Classification/Compensation Plan, effective July 1, 
2001. 

$15,260,220 

FY 2001-2002 DHR budget 

Pending a review by the Finance Committee of the 
reclassification of 276 Special Assistant positions 
represented by the Municipal Employees 
Association (MEA), the Board of Supervisors, in 
accordance with the Finance Committee's 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

recommendations, placed a reserve of $15,260,220 
m the FY 2001-2002 DHR budget to fund six 
months of salaries and fringe benefits for the period 
from January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002 for 
276 former Special Assistant positions represented 
by the MEA. Under the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between the City and MEA 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
which is effective from July 1, 2001 through June 
30, 2003, the DHR created a new series of 15 
management classifications under the MCCP 
(shown in Attachment I) and preliminarily 
allocated the 276 Special Assistant positions into 
the 15 new management classifications, effective 
July 1, 2001. 

The Board of Supervisors instructed DHR to review 
the subject positions to determine if the positions 
should be classified as exempt positions or be 
subject to Civil Service procedures within 45 
working days of July 1, 2001. DHR submitted the 
list of 276 Special Assistant positions, including 
their recommended status as exempt or provisional 
positions, to the Board of Supervisors on September 
7, 2001, or 48 working days after July 1, 2001. 
Attachment II, provided by DHR, is a list of 276 
filled Special Assistant positions in 36 City 
departments that were reclassified from Special 
Assistant to management classifications under the 
MCCP on July 1, 2001. 

The 276 Special Assistant positions represented by 
MEA were moved into the 15 new management 
classifications under the MCCP on July 1, 2001. 
Approval of the requested release of $15,260,220 
would fund the salaries and fringe benefits for 
these positions for the six-month period from 
January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Robert Pritchard of DHR, DHR 

reviewed all 276 Special Assistant positions, which 
are represented by MEA and were preliminarily 
allocated into the new management classifications 
on July 1, 2001, to determine if these positions 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



were classified as exempt or as subject to Civil 
Service procedures. Those positions, which were 
identified as subject to Civil Service procedures, 
were to have provisional appointments. Provisional 
Civil Service appointments are made when a 
competitive examination process has not been 
completed and no eligible fist is available. 
Positions exempt from Civil Service are specifically- 
identified in the City Charter. Charter Section 
10.104 permits 19 categories of exempt 
appointments divided into three groupings. 
Charter Sections 10.104-1 through 10.104-12 
contain 12 categories of exempt appointments 
ranging from new authorizations (e.g., "all 
supervisory and policy-level positions within the 
Office of the Mayor and the Office of the City 
Administrator") to the continuation of many of the 
exempt positions authorized by the 1932 Charter, 
such as commission secretaries, department heads, 
and members of boards and commissions. Charter 
Sections 10.104-13 through 10.104-15 contain three 
categories of exempt positions, which include 
attorneys, most physicians and dentists, the 
Employee Retirement System Actuary, and 
Assistant Sheriff. Charter Sections 10.104-16 
through 10.104-19 contain four categories of 
exempt positions for part-time, seasonal, 
temporary, substitute, and disabled positions. 

2. Mr. Pritchard states that DHR originally 
reviewed the 276 Special Assistant positions 
represented by MEA (of which, originally, 256 were 
exempt and 20 were provisional) and determined in 
the preliminary allocation process that of these 276 
positions, 83 should be exempt and 193 should be 
provisional. After the further review requested by 
the Finance Committee. DHR determined that nine 
of the 276 former Special Assistant positions that 
were preliminarily allocated as exempt positions 
prior to July 1, 2001, should instead be classified 
into provisional Civil Service positions and that 
seven of the 276 former Special Assistant positions 
that were preliminarily allocated as Civil Service 
positions prior to July 1, 2001, should be classified 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



as exempt positions. Therefore, in total, DHR has 
identified 81 positions, or 29.3 percent, of the 
subject 276 positions as exempt positions, which 
includes seven positions that should be reclassified 
from provisional Civil Service positions to exempt 
positions and 74 positions that were already 
classified as exempt positions. The balance of 195 
(276 less 81) are provisional positions. Attachment 
II shows the 81 exempt positions and the Charter 
Section covering the position. 

3. Mr. Pritchard advises that 272 of the 276 subject 
positions were moved laterally into a new 
management classification with no change in pay. 
Two of the 276 subject positions were moved from 
lower Special Assistant classes into higher MCCP 
pay grades. According to Mr. Pritchard, the 
movement of these two positions into higher MCCP 
pay grades was required because these positions 
were allocated to Deputy Director or Department 
Head positions and no equivalent MCCP pay grade 
exists. One 1376 Special Assistant in the Business 
and Economic Development Department was 
allocated to a 0953 Deputy Director III (equivalent 
to a 1377 Special Assistant) and placed at an 
increased salary of $90 biweekly or $2,349 
annually. One 1377 Special Assistant in the 
Department of Aging was allocated to a 0962 
Department Head II (equivalent to a 1378 Special 
Assistant) and placed at an increased salary of $81 
biweekly or $2,114 annually. 

4. Mr. Pritchard advises that two of the 276 
positions were allocated to lower equivalent MCCP 
pay grades because there were no equivalent 
MCCP pay grades for these positions. One 1375 
Special Assistant in the Department of Aging was 
allocated to a 0952 Deputy Director II (equivalent 
to a 1374 Special Assistant) and placed at an 
increased salary of $85 biweekly or $2,219 
annually. According to Mr. Pritchard, DHR placed 
the incumbent of the 1375 Special Assistant 
position in a salary step that resulted in an actual 
pay increase of $85 biweekly even though the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



position was moved to the lower pay grade of a 
0952 Deputy Director II in order to prevent a pay 
decrease for the incumbent. One 1376 Special 
Assistant in the Department of Elections was 
allocated to a 0954 Deputy Director II (equivalent 
to a 1374 Special Assistant) and placed at a salary 
step, which equaled the incumbent's existing rate 
of pay, in order to result in no pay decrease. 

5. The total current increased salary cost of 
allocating these four Special Assistant positions to 
MCCP pay grades that are not equivalent to the 
Special Assistant pay grades is $256 biweekly or 
$6,682 annually. 

6. The Board of Supervisors instructed DHR to 
show that (a) each of the 276 former Special 
Assistant positions had been appropriately 
classified into new management positions under 
the the MCCP, (b) each of the 276 former Special 
Assistant positions had been reclassified as Civil 
Service positions, based on minimum qualification 
requirements and based on a competitive selection 
process, and (c) specific criteria had been developed 
for each classification created by the MCCP. 

7. According to Mr. Pritchard, DHR is continuing to 
negotiate with MEA regarding the implementation 
of the MCCP, and has not reached agreement with 
MEA at this time regarding the implementation of 
the MCCP and the new series of management 
classifications. Mr. Pritchard advises that, if DHR 
and MEA do not reach agreement regarding 
implementation of the MCCP and the new series of 
management classifications, DHR will conduct a 
job analysis m order to again reclassify the 276 
former Special Assistant positions. Mr. Pritchard 
states that DHR has not yet established a timeline 
and implementation plan for once again 
reclassifying the subject 276 former Special 
Assistant positions into permanent Civil Service 
classifications. Mr. Pritchard advises that 
reclassifying the 276 former Special Assistant 
positions into permanent Civil Service 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

classifications, instead of using the new 
management classifications under the MCCP, will 
require DHR to evaluate the current job duties of 
each position and assign that position to the 
appropriate existing Civil Service classification. 
According to Mr. Pritchard, many of the 276 former 
Special Assistant positions will have job duties that 
do not coincide with existing Civil Service 
classifications, and DHR will be required to create 
new Civil Service classifications to accommodate 
the job duties of the position. 

8. Any reclassification of the 276 former Special 
Assistant positions into existing or new Civil 
Service positions, resulting in increased salary 
costs, will be subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval. Under the Administrative Provision of 
the Annual Salary Ordinance, Section LIB, the 
Human Resources Director has authority to change 
the classification of a position, without obtaining 
approval of the Board of Supervisors, provided that 
the rate of pay is the same or less. The Budget 
Analyst recommends that, due to the scope of the 
reclassification of the 276 positions into new or 
existing Civil Service classifications, the 
reclassification of all 276 former Special Assistant 
positions be subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval. The Budget Analyst further recommends 
that DHR submit bimonthly reports to the Board of 
Supervisors on the status of the reclassification of 
the 276 positions. 

9. According to Ms. Andrea Gourdine of DHR, if 
the Board of Supervisors does not approve the 
requested release of $15,260,220 to fund six months 
of salaries and fringe benefits for the subject 276 
positions for the period from January 1, 2002 
through June 30, 2002, the incumbents of these 276 
positions will be laid off. 

Recommendations: 1. Direct a letter to the DHR, requiring that the 

DHR submit bimonthly reports to the Board of 
Supervisors on the status of the reclassification of 
the 276 former Special Assistant positions into 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



existing or new Civil Service positions, as noted in 
Comment 8. 

2. Direct a letter to the DHR, requiring that the 
DHR submit the reclassification of the 276 former 
Special Assistant positions into existing or new- 
Civil Service positions to the Board of Supervisors 
for approval, as noted in Comment 8. 

3. Approval of the requested release of reserved 
funds m the amount of $15,260,220 to fund six 
months of salaries and fringe benefits for the 276 
Special Assistant positions is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 1 



Appendix C 



Rates 6/30/01 



Class Title and 
Job Code 


Pay Grade 


Range 
A 






step 1 


step 2 


step 3 


step 
4 


step 5 


step 6 


step 7 


Manager 1 (0911) 


1 


1736 


1823 


1914 


2009 


2110 


2215 


2326 


Manager II (0912) 


2 


1876 


1970 


2069 


2172 


2281 


2395 


2514 


Manager III (0913) 


3 


2019 


2120 


2226 


2337 


2454 


2577 


2706 


Manager IV (0921) 


4 


2172 


2281 


2395 


2514 


2640 


2772 


2910 


Manager V (0922) 

Deputy Director I 
(0951) 


5 


2303 


2418 


2539 


2666 


2800 


2940 


3087 


Manager VI (0923) 


6 


2478 


2602 


2732 


2868 


3012 


3162 


3320 


Manager VII (0931) 
Deputy Director II 
(0952) 


7 


2666 


2800 


2940 


3087 


3241 


3403 


3574 


Manager VIII (0932) 
Department Head I 
(0961) 


8 


2863 


3012 


3162 


3320 


3486 


3661 


3844 


Manager IX (0933) 


9 


3087 


3241 


3403 


3574 


3752 


3940 


4137 


Manager X (0941) 
Deputy Director III 
(0953) 


10 


3320 


3486 


3661 


3844 


4036 


4238 


4449 


Manager XI (0942) 
Department Head II 
(0962) 


11 


3547 


3724 


3910 


4106 


4311 


4527 


4753 


Deputy Director IV 
(0954) Department 
Head III (0963) 


12 


3777 


3966 


4164 


4372 


4591 


4821 


5062 


Manager Xll (0943) 
Deputy Director V 
(0955) 


13 


4028 


4229 


4440 


4662 


4895 


5140 


5397 


Department Head IV 
(0964) 


14 


4334 


4551 


4779 


5018 
I 


5269 


5532 


5809 




15 


4662 


4895 


51401 5397 


5667 


5950 


6247 




16 


5018 


5269 


5532 1 5809 


6099 


6404 


6725 


Department Head V 
(0965) 


17 


5397 


5667 


5950 


6247 


6560 


6888 


7232 



City and County of San Francisco and 

Municipal Executives Association 

July 1,2001 -June 30, 2003 



5. «J 































































"c 












c 






c 




c 




d 




c 






































CD 










> 


o 




> 


g 


> 


o 


> 


g 


> 


o 






































E 
c 










'u 


ra 




"g 


ra 


'o 


3 


'CD 


ra 


u 


2 






































p 










o 


c 




g 


c 


g 


c 


_o 


"E 


o 


c 


















































ra 






CD 




CD 




CD 




CD 






































> 










o 


E 




G 


E 


"o 


E 


ts 


E 


o 


E 






































c 
LU 










G 


G 




CD 


CD 


CD 


G 


CD 


CD 


o 


CD 


















































































































JZ 


a 




JZ 


a. 


JZ 


Q. 


JD 


ci 


JZ 


a. 






































O 










3 

CO 


E 




3 

CO 


£ 


ra 

CO 


E 


CO 


E 


ra 

CO 


£ 






































"E 










CO 


a. 




CD 


0. 


CD 


a. 


CD 


Cl 


CD 


Q_ 






































CD 










JZ 


o 




JZ 


o 


JZ 


a 


X3 


O 


JZ 


O 






































E 










2 

3 


U 
2 




TJ 
Z3 


u 

2 


ra; 

3 


u 
2 


ra 


O 
2 


-a 
z: 


5 






































CO 

CL 










O 






o 




o 




o 




c 








































CD 

a 










£ 


CD 




jz 


CD 


JZ 


CD 


JZ 


CD 


JZ 


CD 














































en 


jz 




09 


£ 


CO 


JC 


CO 


JZ 


Cl 


JZ 


















































































































C 






C 




c 




c 




ra 








































CD 

■a 










a 


o 




o 


O 


g 


o 


o 


a 


g 


o 
















































O 






o 




c 




o 




o 






































c 










en 


g 




co 


s 


CO 


s 


CO 


5 


CO 


§ 






































ra 










o 

a 


h- 




o 
a 


r- 


o 

Cl. 


H 


a 

a. 


H 


o 

CL 


h- 






































CD 

> 
o 










co 


G 
co 




CO 


CD 
CO 


CO 


CD 
CO 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CD 

CO 














































£ 


ra 
jz 




£ 


CO 

jC 


d 


CO 


£ 


CO 

JZ 


JZ 


CO 

JZ 




















j>. 


















E 










"co 


a. 




ra 


QL 


a 


a. 


ra 


Cl 


ra 


Cl 




















S 


















o 










CO 


CD 




JZ 

co 


c 


jz 

CO 


ra 
c 


CO 


ra 
c 


JZ 
CO 


ra 
c 












C£ 




CO 

CD 

CJ 




JZ 
CO 

CO 










co 

'CD 
J 




CO 

CD 
U 




CO 

c 










G 


3 




s 


5 


_2 


3 


CO 


3 


_CD 


3 


E 

ra 










CD 




£ 




a 










2 

G 
CO 




'2 

G 
CO 




g 










"ra 
o 


"a 
raj 




ra 
o 


T3 

■a 


"ra 
o 


T3 


ro 
o 


X3 

TD 


ro 
u 


— 
TZ 
















c 
o 




E 

CD 










CO 

o 

Q. 










ra 
C 


.9 




■a 

ra 


a 


C 


CO 


T3 

c 


CO 


C 


.2 


ra 
o 


jj< 








o 
c 
ro 




> 




CD 

o 




E 






CD 
> 




CO 
> 












2 

■a 

o 


'co 

co 

ra 
u 
G 




03 

ra 

T3 

o 


en 
ra 
U 

CD 


G 

ra 
-a 
o 


CO 
CO 

ro 
u 

CD 


ra 
_g 


CO 
CO 

ro 
o 
CD 


0) 

"to 

T3 
O 


CO 

ra 

CD 

CD 


Cl 
ra 
c 

o 


CD 

O 
>- 








ra 

LL 




ra 
"lo 
'ra 




3= 
O 
ca 




ra 
ra 
c 
ro 
2 






"ro 

1c? 
'ra 




ro 
"to 
'cz 




"S5 

CO 








_ffl 


o 

JZ 
ffl 


JZ 

3 




CD 

JZ 

s 


JZ 

i 


CD 

jz 
« 


3 


CD 

n 

ro 


JZ 

3 


CD 
JZ 

a 


JZ 

i 


o 

CD 

a. 


c 
ra 
o 
O 








ra 

3 

an 




E 

< 




o 
ra 
2 




j* 

CO 






E 

< 




E 
■a 
< 




-g 
o 

CO 




■ra 




p 


"ra 
> 


c 
q 




'ra 
> 


c 
a 


'ra 
> 


c 
o 


ro 
> 


c 
a 


'ra 
> 


c 
a 


£ 


g 








o 




O 




c 




5 






O 




o 




o 


o 


ra 

G 


g 




ra 






ra 




ra 




ra 




ra 




o 


c 








o 




o 




CD 




a 






G 




G 




"u 


G 


G 


J2 


c 


co 




c 


an 


ra 


CO 


c 




c 


CO 


o 


o 








g 




CD 




O 




CD 






G 




G 




CD 


CD 




G 


O 


o 




o 


G 


o 


a 










































c 




-3 
O 

■2, 
'3" 


.o 


□. 




g 


a 


,g 


C 


o 


a 


_g 


a 


5 


a 








Q 




a 




a 




Q 






Q 




a 




Q 


G 


G 

E 

TZ 

ra 

Q 


Q 


TO 


o 




"ra 


CD 


ro 


CD 


ro 


o 


n 


CD 


>. 


2< 








>. 




>, 




>, 




■^ 






>. 




•>> 




>, 


>^ 


>-. 


£ 
o 






o 


2 


E 

jo 




E 


£ 


E 

G 


CJ 

£ 


ra 
Q. 


ra 
a 








3 




ra 
c 




"3 
a 




ra 
Q. 






ra 
ra. 




ra 
c 




Z3 

Q. 


3 

CL 


ra 

ZL 






G 

to 






a) 

00 




CD 
CO 




CD 
tfl 




CD 
CO 


CJ 


a 








CD 




CD 




CD 




a 






G 




G 




CD 


G 


G 


G 


a 


ra 




_ra 


c 


C 


ra 


a 


G 








Q 




c 




D 




D 






Q 




G 




Q 


G 


Q 


Q 






































_ 




































































co 




CO 




CO 




CO 






CO 




co 










&• 


o 






o 




CD 




q 




o 




q 


q 








o 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


q 


o 




q 


q 


a 


q 


co 
q 


CO 

o 


m 

o 


co 

a 


o 
® 

o 


<* 






^r 




TT 




t 




vr 




-r 


-T 








•3- 


o 


t 


q 


^r 


o 


'T 


<* 

c 




^ 


O 


■* 


o 


"3- 


rr 


-T 


« 


o 






o 




O 




o 




o 




O 


o 








O 




O 




o 




O 






o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


d 


< 
z 


< 

z 


d 


< 

Z 


CD 


< 

z 


d 


< 

z 


d 


< 

z 


d 


d 


< 

Z 


< 

Z 


< 
Z 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


c< 

Z 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


























































N 

3 

2 


X 

LU 


> 


> 


X 

LU 


> 

a. 


X 

LU 


> 

QL 


X 

LU 


> 


X 
LU 


> 

Cl^ 


X 

LU 


X 

LU 


> 


> 


> 


X 
Hi 




X 

LU 




X 

LU 




X 

u 




> 


X 

LU 




X 

LU 




X 

LU 


X 

LU 


X 

LU 


X 

lU 


c/S 


a 


a. 


Q. 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 




Cl 




Cl 




Cl 




a. 


0. 




CL 




Cl 


Cl 


QL 


LL. 










































































































ra: 




era 




=c 




era 






> 




> 


— 




ra 

G 


^ 








































































































_o 




c 




G 




o 






o 




G 






































































































— 


— 


— 


— 


"5 
eg 


= 


o 
a 




CD 
CJ 




CJ 








o 
CD 




G 
G 


o 


"g 


X 


U 




> 




> 


> 




> 




> 




> 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


a 


> 


5 


X 


c5 


X 


a 


X 


X 


a 


X 


a 


CD 


2 


ra 

G 





















































Q 


o 


Q 




G 




G 


G 




CD 




CD 




a> 




<n 


a 


CD 


a> 


o 


CD 


>> 


<D 


>~ 


<D 


ra 

a 



Q 


CD 


2? 

ra 
Cl 

CD 

Q 


CD 


CD 


.£■ 


G 


.£- 




E 




O) 




CI 


a> 




ra 




ra 




ra 




ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 
a 

CD 
Q 


ra 


ra 

CL 
CD 

a 


CD 


ra 


o> 


ra 


ra 


2r 


>. 


t 


>< 




TO 




ra 


ra 




ro 




ro 




ra 




ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 


ro 


ra 


ro 


ra 


CO 


ra 


a 

G 


ro 








a 

CL 
G 

Q 




_o 


C 

ra 




C 
ro 


c 
ra 




B 
ro 




c 
ro 




c 
ra 




c 

ra 


c 

ra 


c 

ro 


c 
ro 


c 
ro 


c 
ra 


C 
ro 


c 
ro 


c 
ro 


c 

CO 


c 
ra 


c 

ro 


g" 


a. 

CD 


CL 

G 

Q 


a. 

G 

G 


F 


2 




2 


2 




2 




2 




2 




5 


2 


2 


2 


5 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Q 


2 


Q 


Q 






































_ 




_ 




_ 




^^ 




















■ 
o o 

T O 


CM 




GM 


CM 




CO 




co 




co 




CO 


— 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


c-g 
en 


CO 


CM 


T- 


CO 

LO 


CM 


CO 


B 


co 


LO 

ra 
o 


ro 


,_ 


CM 


CM 


CM 




Cl 


CN 




CN 




CM 




CM 




CN 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 




CO 




CO 


03 


^r 




TT 


■* 


ra 

CJZ 


t 


in 


LO 


co 


LO 


ra 




ra 


ra 




o> 




ra 




C) 




a 


en 


ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 


o 


ra 


d 


ra 


era 


d 


03 


ra 


ra 


o> 


ra 


ra 


ra 


o 




o 


o 




a 




o 




O 




a 


c 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


a 


o 


O 


o 


a 


o 


o 


o 


era 


JZ) 


CM 




CM 


CM 




CO 




CO 




co 




n 


T 


CO 


m 


^o 


Lf> 




IT) 




o 




r>- 




co 










r- 


CO 


1*. 


LO 


-5 12 


r~- 




N 


N 




n 




r^ 




!•« 




r>- 


N 


r- 


N 


l~~ 






f-- 




N 




r>- 




I s - 


■cc 




CO 




r— 


r~. 


r- 


r- 


<3 


co 




CO 


m 




CO 




m 




n 




n 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




m 




CO 




cO 




CO 


co 




CO 




CO 


CO 


co 


m 


to 






































































co 
1) 
o 




































































2 

G 




































































CO 
cu 




































































> 


































































c 




































































a> 


n 


































































E 


"en 


































































■c 


c 


































































(0 






























































ra 






a 


E 




























































ra 






a 


— 




























































ra 






a 


< 




























































< 







Attachment II 
Page 1 of 10 



-= — O O cu O o 

CJ O — -^ T ~ X 



■>- c 

o 2 

c a- 

" c 

■a o 

<u •— 

O (/> 



1/1 


a. 




B 


F 




- 


o 




n 


U 


r- 


J) 
m 

< 


B 
O 


O 

o 

<N 


73 


co 

o 


O 


r ■ 


ifj 


09 


OJ 


(/) 


o 


Q. 


M 




00 


a 




o 


O 




=: 


c 




CD 


■ 




> 


b 




s 


• 




a 


CJ) 





fc> 


c 
n 


•j 

31 


09 

eg 




fc 


u 


r 


Q. 

F 


o 
U 




u 


0) 


f 


a 


a 


JO 


w 


s 


> 


o 


u 



Q. ™ 



CO 


o 














c 




u 


c 



X 



Atcacnment 
Page 2 of ] 



5 6 



15 £• 



C0i- — 

2 !i <" 



: £ 



!i 3 



co 

< £ 

LJ U 



10 



*J 


c 




o 


fO 




c 


Q. 




•"■ 


C 




■o 


O 




0) 






> 


fO 




o 


t/> 




b 


B 
8 




</) 


a 




c 


b 




ro 
to 


o 
o 


T— 








< 


c 
o 

ro 


o 

LO 


CO 


U 






H- 


o 


0) 


in 


o 


a 


<j) 




CO 


(0 




o 


O 




* 


c 




0) 


a) 




> 


E 




<D 


aj 




K 


O) 





o o 



<o 



Page 3 ot 10 



0) 0) 

co ro 



K o 



O c 






11 



^ 


B 





re 


E 


D. 


™ 


c 


•a 


a 


CD 




> 


ta 


o 


</> 


F 


B 




■ 


m 








E 


r 


■ 


o 


in 


U 






to 


B 


CO 


n 


< 






re 


re 


o 


o 


jj» 


o 


CO 


a 


CO 


CO 


re 



> E 

a) a 











































o. 




« 














































CL 


ra 




j3 














































CO 






O) 














































O 


c 




tr 


>N 












































_c 








CC 












































o 

c 


O 

c 

CO 




c 

CO 
O) 'o 


3 
5, 

03 












































3 3 


^3 




E "2 


C 

"c_ 

o 

03 
> 
03 
"03 

C 












































CD to 

o .9 

- 1 

re c - 


w re 

EMo 
S, tr 

re Q- 




— o 

CD CD 
£ CD 

o £ 












































o E 




c: -to 


re 












































o J5 


|S 




to aj 


c 












































Q. ® 


E to 




2 c 


^c 












































1 2 


CD i- 
X O 




» a 


'cu 












































cu to 


a) ^2 
cu re 




r Q.T3 

5 to . 










































c 


> 

0) o 

^ 5- 


"I 
11 




E j: 

CD C- 

03 « 


CD 
CZ 










































re 


-n q. 
3 ra 




re i2 

C CD 


c 










































73 
CO 

< 


2 t= 


CO c 

-o .2 
re co 




re xi 
E E 

CO 4> 


03 










































CD 


5 .r2 


<u co 




CD E 


XI 










































> 


o E 


x 'E 




2 m 


-c~ 










































3 


£ E 


c E 




> _: 

O ^_ 


o 










































U 
03 
X 

UJ 


53 

^ 0) 


cu o 
■c 0) 




5. O 
to >* 


re 

CD 

£: 

>. 

n 


CO 

E 
co 








































re 


13 U 


CO CJ 




Ct. co 


D5 
O 

Q. 




_o 


































b 


03 








re O 


** 


CD 
O 




H 












o 




o 


c 


p 


_g 


p 


p 


o 


o 


_C 


re 

03 

X 


u 
CO 


Q. '> 

E o 


Q. '> 

£ o 






— 

C 

re 


cu 

CO 

■a 
















u 




(J 


a 


CJ 


o 


u 


L3 


u 


03 


o 


cu £ 








-O. 

o 












03 




03 


2 


03 


03 


a 


CD 


03 


03 


O 


c 


_ro 




73 




-3 

o 












5 




5 


a 


a 


5 


a 


Q 


Q 


c5 


Q 


03 

E 


3 
<u 

T3 


co '5 

CO O" 
— . CU 


S8 ' 5 

CO q- 
^ CD 




. to 

1- CO 

2 1 
cd E 


73 


c 
re 

CO 




O 












"3 




3 


=i 


3 


3 


3 


re 


D 


3 


3 


re 




C i- 


C >- 




03 


CD 




7§ 












a 




a 


a. 


a 


a 


CI 


c_ 


CL 


G_ 


Ci 


a 


c 


13 -0 


3 -a 




C 


3 














o 




03 


03 


03 


o 


S3 


or 


CD 


03 


03 





o 


o c 


o c 




.i: O 


3 


CO 




a. 












D 




c 


Q 


a 


D 


c 


C 


C 


Q 


G 


G 


O 


O re 


O re 




Q O 


CO 


CO 










































, , 


_^ 












£< 












CD 




CD 


to 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


co 


in 


CO 


CO 

q 


m 




t— 


















O 




O 


c 


O 


q 


O 


O 


q 


q 


o 


q 


q 






q 








o 

Ol 

2 












-cr 




* 


^r 


^r 


<5f 


T 


^r 


t 


t 


■*>■ 


T 


T 


■'cr 
o 


^3" 

o 




t} 1 


















O 




o 


c 


o 


o 


a 


c 


o 


o 


o 


C 


c 




o 








< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


*^ 


< 
























<: 5 


< 5 


< 


^ 






< 












o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


c 


o 


c 


o 


c 


o 








o 








u 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 




Z 
























Z 0_V 


Z IT. 


z 








z 


M 

3 

2 






























































X 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

act 




X 








> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


> 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


LLJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


> 


UJ 






> 


55 


o_ 


a 


a 


CL 


Q. 


a. 


D- 


Q_ 


a_ 


Q_ 


n 


0. 


Q. 


0. 


CL 


a. 


a 


0. 


0. 


CL 






a. 














> 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 




— 

re 






























o 




c 


o 


a 


o 


c 


o 


_o 


o 


o 


03 




















































I 






























o 




5 


c 


o 


o 


o 


u 


o 


O 


u 



































o 


o 


CD 


03 


a) 


03 


03 


o 


03 






















X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




X 




















C 

o 

E 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 






> 














q 




Q 


a 


a 


a 


a 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 




















03 


0) 


oi 


03 


CD 




o 




















03 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 






CD 




CI 


g 


Ol 


cod 


a 


>- 


cx 


2? 


>> 


>. 


>v 


j>> 


>- 


>. 


& 


>- 


c 


CD 


D) 


O) 


Ol 


O) 






O) 




re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


3 


re 


3 


^ 


3 


3 


a 


3 


D 


D 


3 


re 


re 


a) 


CO 


CO 


re 






CO 


_© 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


Q. 


c 


c. 


Ol 


a 


a. 


O. 


a. 


D_ 


CI 


CL 


c_ 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 






c 




re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


03 


re 


03 


CD 


03 


o 


03 


03 


03 


© 


0) 


03 


CO 


CD 


CO 


ra 


CO 






CO 


P 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


a 


2 


a 


a 


a 


O 


Q 


D 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


5 


2 


2 


5 


2 






2 


a 










cm 


in 


W 


in 


m 


in 


in 


in 


in 


in 


in 






CJ 


CM 


<n 


es 


CM 






CM 


« 


T 


-3- 


-r 


-r 


en 


<* 


en 


w 


in 


m 


LI 


in 


in 


UD 


in 


CD 


CNJ 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 






CM 


a 


CD 


on 


cd 


en 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


C3 


C3 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


03 


03 


CO 


CD 


O) 






OJ 


-1 u 


o 


O 


o 


a 


o 


o 


a 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


O 


c 


O 


o 


O 


O 






O 


-° . 




















































o « 


r- 


[». 


[«. 


r- 


cc 


a 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




CM 


m 


CN 


CM 


co 


CJ 


CM 






CM 


"> 35 


r» 


s. 


S 


N 


r^- 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CC 


■CO 


CO 




r^- 


|V 


1^- 


f- 


r~ 


r- 






r». 


30 


FJ 


m 


m 


CO 


ro 


M 


CO 


FJ 


CO 


co 


CO 


en 


n 


M 


ro 


n 


ro 


CO 


CO 


n 


CO 


ro 






co 


w 






































































































ft 




















































CD 
































































































p 










































c 






>. 




re 








'o 


































o 
















CO 


B 
« 

E 
































'55 

E 

E 
o 

o 




c 


I J 

== CO 
C 73 




73 
C 
I 








U- - 

C CD 

■2 E 

r- CD 
CD CD 

> re 


r 

<o 


































CO 

03 


ll 




< 








CD- 




































CO 


:= C 




>< 








c co- 


CD 
































e 




CO 


-C O 












co to 


a 
































< 




< 


o u 




U 








a 2 



5. "o 



co to 



12 



+3 


C 




o 


re 




c 


Q. 




— 


c 




■o 


o 




<B 






> 


m 







U) 




£ 


c 

0) 




u) 


a 




c 


b 




19 


o 
a 


T— 


< 

15 


c 
o 

ra 
o 


o 
o 

CN 
in 

o 


O 

o> 


^ 


o 


1/3 


o 


a 


I/) 




w 


TO 







o 




* 


c 




0) 


03 




> 


E 




4) 


0) 




E 


O) 





o o 



<o 



o 


F 


a) 


o 






n 


:i 




E 


CD 


n 




U 


a 


o 



5 2 



a a. 



a as 



E " 



2 z 



> 
at 



L a 



X .!= 

Z Q 

rn ■fc- 






12 

CO | 

s 2 

i= o 

'•= <-> 

_ £> 

"2 ° 

a s 

CO 03 



Q.T3 
_ 03 
CO g 



O .«3 



£ £ 



.2 5 



O. qj 



£ E 



o — 



13 





E 




cq 






s 


(fl 


D 


V 


O 


a 


r 


a 




i 






co 
(1) 


CD 


a 


n 



.2 § 



■ 

o .2 

c Q- 

" c 

"O o 

0) •— 

O w 

E g 

CO Q. 

c E 

« c g 
"On 

- «2 

o iE * 

O (0 ° 

Q. 10 

CO « 

o 2 

5 * 



(0 


o 






o 

CD 


u 
p 


11 






CO 


() 


< 


c 


LU 


c 


a. 


r 


<n 




O 




•a 






c/1 


o ^ 


C 




a.< 


CD 


-c j*: 


a 


ll 


a 

a. 




>% <o 


CO 


5 £ 


C) 


3 E 


a> 


.■= CD 


Cl 


ca jt 


Cfl 


cr co 



o jS 



o 



a 



> E 
o o 
» o> 
re 
(0 c 



5 o 



< u 

CO 



o E 

CD 01 



0) Q_ 

■° o 

2 2 



= O 
CO > 
° 2 

cl r- 



£ ™ 






CO CO 

■a o 

O CD 



E ." 



*- < 

2 2 



IS 

O _co 

o c 

— Q) 

o E 

CD CD 



CD Q. 

-a o 

2 O 

2 5 



aj 0. 



5 a 

E o 



-- < 

o z 



Page 6 o f 10 



i;l 



>!13 ° 



.. CD 

™.» — 

s x a 



5<° 



- £ 



: i 1 



14 



Page 7 of 10 



o 
£ c 

« 

1 a- 
~ c 

•o o 

i «> 

O (fl 

£ s 

</> q. 

1 s 

Beg 

- « S 

2 o S 
'5 >C o> 

ffl w ° 
a u> 
w « 

*2 

a a> 

I i 

ry a) 

TO 

w c 
= m 

I S 



o o 



o .9 

c c 

E> E 
S E 
c o 

UJ O 



Dl CD CT Ol CT)W ■q 



E 

cu 3 

= o 

= o 

c ^ 

a c? 

2 o 

as J? 

to To 



£ £ 



15 



■a o 

0) •— 






to 




E 


• 




n 


a 




c 


b 






o 
U 




J) 
If) 
< 


o 


o 
o 


H 


a; 
o 


o 




u_ 


OT 


o 


(/> 


O 


c 


10 




in 


ra 







O 




* 


c 




o 


CD 




> 


b 




o 


o 




K 


CI 





r* 


\n 


r* 


'en 







o 




a> 
co 
u 


E 
E 
o 

a 


_CD 

u 


b 

E 
o 



'Li 

F 


CD 
I) 


a 

F 


CD 
C) 


CD 


£ 


CD 


e 




<i) 




a> 


09 


U) 


<D 


t/J 


JD 


« 


.Q 


s; 








a) 


at 




> 




> 


a 


O 


CJ 


o 




a 




CJL 












CD 




ra 


CD 

n 


O 


CD 

n 


o 
















a> 










n 


CI) 


n 


c/> 


E 

CD 
CD 


CD 
3 

cr 

CD 


E 

CD 
X 

CD 


CD 
3 

cr 
CD 


;0 










ai 
































< d 



.1 1 



a £> 



Si 



1 



!S -c 



E f 



16 



0) 5 



5 £ 



< o 



Ol 












Si 


a 


0. 


c; 




D 


c 


a 










o 






— 










m 




N 


— 


c 









a 




a 


CT3 




U 


■ 






-co 



a 




fc 


r 


•n 


r- 


C 






a 


a 







> 


a 

> 


D 


a 




— 


a 




















( ) 






c> 




- 





c 


03 


- 


- 




c; 








7! 


C 




£ 


O 


>. 


b 


so 


— 



K c 

O) 03 

o E 



E c 



R ra E 



C (2 E 



* a- «3 

_a3 a ra 

S «■£ 

<2 O ~ 



a^ii 



* E 



03 Q_ 

■° o 

2 2 



o £ 



S z 






03 0) 



o E 

0) 0) 



03 Q_ 



2 2 



O 03 



E o 

o £ 



03 Q_ 

■° a 

■a o 

2 2 



E o 



2 2 



•> 




a. 




n 

T3 

IB 


c: 
E 
a 




g 






c 
a 


fr 


■a 


a 














OJ 


m 


e/> 


o 


c 


03 


o 


j= 






£1.2 g 

9 5 ^ 



x o 
uj a, 



n ^ 03 

— v= Ol 



oil 

Z- <" u 

X O 03 

™ Q.C/3 

— O. ai 

2? E t 

3 03 TO 

(/) X -C 

03 W O 



17 



ALiacnment 11 
Page 10 of 10 



JS 

C CL 

'" c 

■o O 

O 53 

O U) 

c 



7) 



a 



H a 

c E 

« o 

J? .2 ° 

'3 !■ o> 

a> '35 ° 

a. </) 

</) w 

o « 

5 c 

o a 

'> E 

V 0) 



> 

Q. 

to _: 

a I 

a> 5 

c o 

•j o 

c ^ 

03 £> 

"2 o 
S iB 

to CO 

CO " 

c cd 
•2 £ 
'55 c 

&£ 

_ 05 

co c 

.11 

.22 -a 
> — 

o CO 
Q. co 

?| 

x S 

LU CL 

CO t 

CD 
~ Ol 

c c 

si 
ii 

to "3 

CO to 

II 



18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 01-2039 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Treasurer/Tax Collector 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $1,162,050 to fund the Treasurer/Tax 
Collector's new Business Tax System. 

$1,162,050 

General Fund monies reserved by the Board of 
Supervisors for the Business Tax System in the Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001 Treasurer/Tax Collector budget. 

In the FY 2000-2001 budget, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated and placed on reserve $1,162,050 of a total 
project appropriation of $2,162,050 for the replacement of 
the Business Tax System for the Treasurer/Tax Collector, 
pending the submission to the Board of Supervisors of 
budget details including the selection of the contractor 
and a formalized project plan for the conversion of the 
current Business Tax System to new software. According 
to Mr. Jay Banfield of the Treasurer/Tax Collector's 
Office, the Department has recommended that a contract 
of $1,250,000 be awarded to Tiburon Technologies, Inc., a 
consultant to provide for the conversion of the current 
Business Tax System to the new software. 

Mr. Banfield advises that the Treasurer/Tax Collector has 
proposed the replacement of its existing Business Tax 
System 1 because the current system, which was developed 
in 1991, is based on out-of-date software that will no 
longer be technically supported by its vendor, Computer 
Associates. According to Mr. Banfield, the new Business 
Tax System will allow the Treasurer/Tax Collector to 
process inquiries and data more quickly and to streamline 
internal processes, resulting in quicker responses to the 
public and in the maximization of Business Tax revenues 
through the more efficient collection of Business Taxes. 
Due to technological advances of the new software, the 
system would be capable of establishing an early warning 



1 The current Business Tax System is based on the Integrated Data Management System (IDMS), a 
database software program. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

system that would alert the Treasurer/Tax Collector's 
auditors of delinquent Business Taxes. As noted in 
Attachment I, Mr. Banfield states that the Treasurer/Tax 
Collector is working to improve its Business Tax collection 
efforts as a result of recommendations made by the 
Budget Analyst in the 1995 Management Audit of the Tax 
Collector's Office and in a follow-up report by the Budget 
Analyst in 1998. 

Budget: A summary budget for the total estimated project costs of 

$2,162,000 is as follows 2 : 

Project Component Estimated Costs 

Contract with Tiburon Technologies, 

Inc. for Conversion of IDMS to 

Oracle (see Comment No. 2) $1,250,000 

Software Licenses 

(see Comment No. 3) 402,486 

Hardware 

(see Comment No. 4) 400,000 

Training 

(see Comment No. 5) 55,000 

Automation/Consulting 

(see Comment No. 6) 54,514 

Total Costs $2,162,000 

Attachment II, provided by the Treasure/Tax Collector, 
provides additional budget details for the summary 
budget shown above. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Banfield reports that none of the $2,162,050 

originally appropriated in the FY 2000-2001 budget has 
been expended. Therefore the proposed budget, as 
detailed above, is for the total project costs of $2,162,000. 

2. Mr. Banfield reports the Department selected Tiburon 
Technologies, Inc. for the Business Tax System project 
through a Request for Proposals process for a contract not 
to exceed $1,250,000. Mr. Banfield further reports that 
out of ten firms responding to the Department's Request 



2 The Treasurer/Tax Collector is requesting the release of reserves for $1,162,050 and has submitted 
a proposed budget of $2,162,000 or $50 less than the $2,162,050 originally budgeted for the project 
appropriation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



for Proposals, Tiburon Technologies, Inc., scored the 
highest technically and submitted one of the two lowest 
cost proposals of the three firms found to be the most 
qualified, as shown in Attachment III, which was 
provided by the Treasurer/Tax Collector. According to 
Mr. Banfield, the Treasurer/Tax Collector's Office only 
evaluated the cost proposals of the three firms considered 
to be the most qualified. Ciber Inc. also submitted a cost 
proposal of $1,250,000. KPMG Consulting submitted a 
cost proposal of $1,255,800. According to Mr. Banfield the 
amount included in the FY 2000-2001 budget for this 
contract was $1,300,000. 

3. Mr. Banfield reports that the Business Tax System 
project requires $374,058 in Software Licenses from 
vendors identified in Attachment II. The Treasurer/Tax 
Collector has requested a Contingency for Software 
Licenses of $28,428, or 7.6 % of Software Licenses costs 
for a total budget for Software Licenses of $402,486. 

4. According to Mr. Banfield, the Treasurer/Tax Collector 
has already received quotes for hardware purchases 
totaling $366,542 from the City's Committee on 
Information Technology (COIT) approved Computer Store 
vendors, as detailed in Attachment II. The budget 
includes an additional $6,251 for the COIT fees assessed 
on Computer Store purchases, or approximately 1.56 % of 
the total hardware costs. Mr. Banfield reports that an 
additional $27,207, or about 6.8 % of the hardware costs, 
has been budgeted as a Contingency in order to meet 
unanticipated expenditures as the new system is 
implemented. Total expenditures for hardware purchases 
and contingency costs are $400,000. 

5. Mr. Banfield reports that the budget request of 
$55,000 for Training will be conducted by Oracle, as 
shown in Attachment II. 

6. Mr. Banfield states that the remaining balance of 
$54,514, of the total project costs of $2,162,000, has been 
budgeted for Automation/Consulting which is intended to 
streamline the use of the new Business Tax System. As 
stated in Attachment I, Mr. Banfield reports that the 
efforts to streamline the use of the Business Tax System 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

are as a result of recommendations made by the Budget 
Analyst in the 1995 Management Audit of the Office of 
the Treasurer/Tax Collector and in a subsequent report by 
the Budget Analyst in 1998. According to Mr. Banfield, 
the Department expects that the Automation/Consulting 
component of the project may be performed by Tiburon 
Technologies, Inc. However, Mr. Banfield adds, if an 
outside consultant is needed for the 

Automation/Consulting component of the project, the 
Department will solicit quotes from a COIT approved 
Computer Store vendor or select a contractor through a 
Request for Proposals process. Since the Treasurer/Tax 
Collector has not selected a consultant for the $54,514 
budgeted for Automation/Consulting, and has not yet 
submitted budget details for this component of the 
project, the Budget Analyst recommends that this $54,514 
remain on reserve pending selection of a consultant and 
submission of budget details to the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Approve the release of $1,107,486 of the requested 

$1,162,050 in reserved funds ($1,162,050 less $54,514 for 
Automation/Consulting as discussed in Comment No. 6 
less $50 for which no budget details have been provided 
as noted in Footnote No. 2). This recommendation would 
leave $54,564 remaining on reserve. 

2. Continue to reserve $54,564 pending submission of 
budget details to the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 




Page i ot 2 

Office of the Treasurer 

& Tax Collector 

City and County of San Francisco 

City Hall , Room 140 N <>s_ 1 _o3' 

#1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102 SUSAN LEAL, Treasurer 

JAY BANTTELD, Chief Assistant Treasurer 

Phone: (415) 554-4478 

November 29, 2001 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

Room 244 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

During the FY 2000/2001 budget process, the Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector 
requested and received $2,162,000 for the replacement of our Business Tax System. Our 
request of 52,162,000 was based on the following budgetary projections: 

Conversion to Oracle 31,300,000.00 

Software Licenses S 107,000.00 

Training S 55,000.00 

Hardware S 400,000.00 

Automation/Consulting S 300,000.00 

Total 52,162,000.00 

As we approach the initiation of this replacement project, we have gathered additional 
information and have adjusted our budgetary projections as noted below: 

Conversion to Oracle 5 1 ,250,000.00 

Software Licenses S 402,486.40 

Training 5 55,000.00 

Hardware 5 400,000.00 

Automation/Consulting S 54,513.60 

Total S2, 162,000. 00 

As you can see, the largest variance from our initial projection has been in Software 
Licenses, where our estimate increased from 5107,000 to 5402,486.40. Since the Board 
of Supervisors appropriated 52,162,000 for the business tax replacement project, we have 
adjusted our Automation/Consulting budget from 5300,000 to S54,5 13.60. The 
Automation/Consulting line item is in response to the Budget Analyst's Recommendation 
of its Follow-Up Review of the 1995 Management Audit of the Tax Collector's Office: 



23 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



"Implement a goal of processing all Business Tax statements received by the February 28 
filing deadline within 30 working days, or by approximately April 15 of each year. 
Dedicate two clerical staff to full time scanning of statements during this 60 day period, 
and four clerical staff to full time data entry of complex statements, in order to achieve 
entry of all statements by April 15." 

Our office has adopted the Budget Analyst's recommendation and has taken significant 
steps to achieving the goal. We see the replacement of the Business Tax system as the 
ideal time to look for additional opportunities to improve efficiencies, to make the 
process less labor intensive, and to meet the goals set forth by the Budget Analyst. Until 
we begin the transition to the new Business Tax System, it is impossible to describe those 
opportunities in detail. We do expect, however, to discover hardware and software 
components that can be deployed to leverage the new BTS technology. One area that we 
are particularly interested in exploring is the use of Web browser technology to extend 
the system to internal and external customers and thereby reduce our reliance on labor- 
intensive processes. As we achieve significant milestones in the project, we will be able 
to provide greater detail and advise as to whether the budgeted amount is sufficient to 
meet the needs of the department. 

You have also asked about the benefits of a new Business Tax system. Your Follow-Up . 
R&Aew of the 1995 Management Audit of the Tax Collector's Office recommended "that 
the Tax Collector select a BTS replacement system which is capable of interfacing with 
the other automated systems in the Tax Collector's Office" because the current Business 
Tax System "remains a labor intensive system and will not link to any of the Tax 
Collector's other automated systems." The proposed replacement system will meet these 
objectives and result in, among other things, 1) increased level of audit tracking to ensure 
higher levels of business compliance; 2) greater speed in statement processing which 
improves customer satisfaction and voluntary taxpayer compliance; and 3) greater 
adherence to local tax law as the new BTS will allow for an integrated collection strategy. 



Sincerely, 



Jay Banfield 



24 





























N 


































^ 


\ 
































\> 
































S.<V\ 








o 
o 


Q 


o 


Q 


Q 


a 


a 


O 


a 


O 


o 


Cn 


CNJ 


<o o 


CI 


Q 


o 


O 


Q 


o 


Q 


a 


o 


O 


Q 


O 


^T 


■V 


w 


lO Q 


CM 


CN 


q 




© 


Q 


33 


Q 


a 


Q 


O 


o 


o 




ai 


to 


to ■<■-" 




l< 




o 


■^ 


•"*■ 


OJ 


T 


i^ 


O 


a 


Q 


•f 


cb 


to 


Q 


a> 03 


Ifl 


Q 


o 


o 


03 


to 


o 


a 


a 


o 


Q 


Q 


<o 


00 


CO 


PI 


O CJ 


C\l 


CN 


a 


co 


to 


03 


o 


03 


CN4 


Q 


-^« 


-r- 


03 


"*£ 


ci" 


Gj 


to" Q 


to" 


N-" 


o_ 


O* 


to 




N. 


<0 


*■ 


O 


evi 






c\T 


CSJ 


C\| 


CI f- 
C\l 




CM 


o" 


m 




















o 












o 


CN 




















^r 












"*■ 



Attachment II 



Q Q Q O 
tO C3 CM o 
V PJ N." O 



LO 



t*}b*(&(*i<*).V>&i.i&*>l*Vy&* 



S*) «} t^ (4 (fl W ^5- 



o 

o 

V) O 
VJ rvi 



CM 

O 

o 

CN 



O 
O 

d 

§ s «-' 
° o £ 

> 



«(^l^t<)(i5i949l9i')49 



C) 


Q 


CO 


a 


Q 


a 


Q 


o 


a 


03 


-q- 


•»■ 


CM 


T 


K 


a 


a 


Q 


-r 


CM 


03 


'-O 


a 


Q 


a 


o 


o 


o 


<o 


T 



i*>(«(*)(OI)9(Ot9«i»H <^ 



4o 15 i? W »! i? 



o 


o 


CM 


CO 


o 


C) 


Q 


o 


■sf 


m- 


to 


in 


C3 


CM 


eg 


o 


CD 


03 


to 


tn 






r^ 


o 


to 


Cl 


O) 


on 


If) 


CS 


CO 


03 


PJ 


0) 


PI 


CM 


CM 


C_J 


^r 


O) 


Ol 


CT! 


a 


W 


s. 


o 


CM 


CN 


CN 


O) 


■»- 




CN 


o 


o 














o 



&s !** *>■» f» &9 «"■» ^ 



<*» </» e/» fee- 



> 



5 s 

co 5 O 



P b 



5 5= 



^ co 3 i- 5 O 



a. a. d 

a q. 5 



cd co a 

Q Q O 



CO CQ 03 

ooo 



CD ? 

& S- 

CD * 

co uj 

oS 1 

CO <D 

O CO 

"5 to 

3 S 



Uj CO 

CD CD 

a- !■ 

CO CD 
Uj LU 



.03 o 33 

§ 3 6 



? P CO -. 



5 § CO ct 



Q. C 



U. « -s sa 



co a a =o 



ci x a co — 

^ co -j i- > O cj 



CO CD 



.a a o ■% 



CO CJ 



§ 5 Q - 

U O X 

2 



at I 
5 o 



2 2 ^3 CO CJ CJ 



- 6 S 

O K- r- 



o o o 



O 



O 



o 
c 
.'c 



25 



Attachment III 



Vendors 





Score 


1 


96 


Tiberon 




2 


87 


Ciber 




3 


79 


KPMG 




4 


65 


SQL Star 




5 


62 


Central Station 


5 


62 


Marotz 


7 


61 


ISN 


8 


59 


TechnoDyne 


- 


Non-responsive 


Hindeliter, De Lamas, 


and Associates 


" 


Late - not 
considered 


Xitec 



Panelists 



Rod 


Loucks 


Chief Technology Officer, DTIS 


Kim 


Thompson 


Oracle Database Manager, DTIS 


Mark 


Buckley 


Director of Business Tax Section, TTC 


Jay 


Banfield 


Chief Assistant Treasurer, TTC 


George 


Putris 


Tax Administrator, TTC 



Scores and cost from interviewed Finalists 



Vendor 


Score 


| Bid Amount 


Tiberon 


96 


51,250,000 


Ciber 


87 


$1,250,000 


KPMG 


79 


$1,255,800 



26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 -File 01-1929 
Departments: 

Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 



Lessee: 

Term of Proposed 
Extension: 



Description: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Resolution authorizing an extension and amendment to 
an existing lease at 1145 Market Street for the 
Department of Human Resources. 

Second floor of 1145 Market Street 

To provide space for DHR's Health Service System, which 
administers the benefits for all City employees. 

Angelo and Yvonne Sangiacomo, doing business as One 
Trinity Center ("Landlord") 

City and County of San Francisco on behalf of DHR 



Five years beginning January 1, 2002 and ending 
December 31, 2006. The City has the right to terminate 
the proposed extension on or after January 1, 2005. Thus, 
the term of the proposed extension is for at least three 
years and up to five years. According to Section 23.22 of 
the original lease, which also applies to the lease 
extension, this lease is subject to Charter Section 3.105 
which requires that the Controller must certify that 
sufficient funds are appropriated for lease payments, or 
the lease could be terminated. 

The proposed lease extension would extend an existing 

full service lease at 1145 Market Street for a period of up 

to five years. The lease would provide for the following 

three changes to DHR's existing lease: 

(1) Provide a right of termination allowing DHR to 

terminate the lease on the date of or after the first 

three years of the lease, or by January 1, 2005, upon 

giving 180 days' advance written notice; 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

(2) Reduce the space that DHR leases by 4,678 square feet 
or 25.6 percent, from 18,254 square feet to 13,576 
square feet (see Comment No. 1); and 

(3) Establish a new annual base rent of $3.00 per square 
foot per month, or $36.00 per square foot per year (see 
Comment No. 3). 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Rental Cost 

To The City: 13,576 square feet at a base rent of $40,728 per month, or 

$3.00 per square foot per month, totaling $488,736 per 
year. Mr. Jerry Romani of the RED advises that the 
subject lease is a full service lease in which the $3.00 per 
square foot base rent includes all operating costs and real 
estate taxes ("Operating Expenses") to be paid by the 
Landlord. Operating costs include but are not limited to 
utilities, janitorial services and supplies, and garbage 
disposal services; general maintenance, cleaning and 
service contracts; required insurance; wages, salaries and 
other labor costs and employee benefits for security 
personnel; reasonable management fees; costs of 
independent contractors engaged by the Landlord; and 
accounting and legal expenses. 

The City currently pays approximately $1.68 per square 
foot per month, or $22,807 per month, totaling $273,421 
per year, which includes $1.46 per square foot in base 
rent plus $0.22 per square foot for increased Operating 
Expenses. Under the proposed lease extension, the City 
would pay $3.00 per square foot per month, or $40,728 
per month, in base rent. Therefore, the City would pay 
78.6 percent more in rent on a per square foot basis (an 
increase from $1.68 to $3.00). According to Mr. Romani, 
the City would pay an additional $1.32 per square foot per 
month ($3.00 less $1.68) in base rent under the terms of 
the proposed lease amendment and extension because the 
proposed base rent of $3.00 represents fair market value. 
The $3.00 per square foot base rent includes all Operating 
Expense during the 2002 base year. 

Mr. Romani explains that the base rent is flat throughout 
the extended lease term. However,' beginning January 1, 
2003, for years two through five of the extended lease 
term, the City would be obligated to pay additional rent 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

equal to a percentage share of any increase in the lessor's 
Operating Expenses above what is already included in the 
base rent. There is no limitation as to what such 
additional increased costs may be charged to the City. 
Under the existing lease, according to Mr. Romani, the 
annual increase in additional rent paid by the City has 
averaged $0,055 per square foot per year (see "Additional 
Rent" below). According to Mr. Romani, the payment of 
additional rent for increased Operating Expenses is a 
standard provision for full service leases. 

The DHR's percentage share of the total rentable space at 
1145 Market Street under the existing lease agreement is 
13.4 percent, or 18,254 square feet out of a total 135,842 
square feet of rentable space. Under the proposed lease 
amendment, DHR would lease 13,576 square feet, or 
approximately 10 percent of the building's total 135,842 
square feet of rentable space. Therefore, DHR would be 
required to pay approximately 10 percent of any increase 
in Operating Expenses above what is already included in 
the base rent (see "Additional Rent" below and Comment 
Nos. 1 and 2). As previously noted, there is no maximum 
as to what the additional costs to the City would be as a 
result of the Landlord's increased operating costs. 

Additional Rent: Upon the completion of the first extension year of 2002, 

the City would pay to the Landlord each month, as 
additional rent above the $3.00 per square foot per month 
base rent, one-twelth of DHR's percentage share of 
approximately 10 percent of the amount, if any, by which 
the Operating Expenses exceed the 2002 base year 
Operating Expenses. In 2001, Operating Expenses are 
estimated at $0.83 per square foot per month, which is 
comprised of $0.61 as part of the base rent and $0.22 in 
increased Operating Expenses above the base rent. The 
$0.22 per square foot per month for increased Operating 
Expenses has accumulated over a four-year period during 
the term of the original lease. The average annual 
increase over the four-year period of the original lease 
was $0,055 per square foot per year. The $3.00 per square 
foot per month base rent in 2002 includes an estimated 
$0.87 per square foot per month for Operating Expenses. 



Right of Renewal: None. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Tenant 
Improvements: 

Source of Funds: 



Comments: 



None. 

DHR's annual budget, including funds currently- 
appropriated for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

1. Although the existing lease agreement applies to 
18,254 square feet, DHR currently occupies only 13,576 
square feet on the second floor of 1145 Market Street, or 
74.4 percent of the leased space. The other 4,678 square 
feet or 25.6 percent of leased space on the seventh floor 
has been occupied and paid for by the Metropolitan 
Transportation Agency (MTA) since this space was 
vacated by DHR's Workers' Compensation Division 
employees in August of 2000. The proposed lease 
amendments would therefore reflect DHR's currently 
occupied leased space. 

2. Mr. Romani reports that DHR will pay approximately 
$273,421 in rent ($237,580 in base rent plus $35,841 in 
estimated increased Operating Expenses) for the 13,576 
square feet occupied by DHR employees for calendar year 
2001. Mr. William Lee of DHR reports that the MTA was 
responsible for the rent and additional Operating 
Expenses for the 4,678 square feet occupied by MTA 
employees for calendar year 2001. 

3. The term of the existing lease began on February 14, 
1997 and expires on December 31, 2001. According to the 
terms of the existing lease, the City has the right to 
extend the lease for an additional five-year term, 
beginning January 1, 2002, as proposed by this 
resolution. Under the terms of the existing lease, if the 
City elects to extend the lease for an additional five years, 
as proposed by this resolution, the rent is to be adjusted 
to equal the prevailing market rate for space of 
comparable size and location to the subject premises 
being offered for rent in other buildings similar in age and 
quality in the Civic Center area. 

4. The existing lease for 18,254 square feet at 1145 
Market Street includes (a) 13,576 square feet on the 
second floor for DHR's Health Service System and (b) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 5, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



4,678 square feet on the seventh floor formerly occupied 
by DHR's Workers' Compensation Division and. currently 
occupied by MTA employees. Mr. Lee advises that the 
DHR's Health Service System currently has a total of 63 
persons occupying this space, including 51 City 
employees, three contracted employees from the 
PeopleSoft Benefits Administration Project and nine 
temporary Claims Technician employees with Sterling 
Services which has a contract with the City to do claims 
administration on a temporary basis at 1145 Market 
Street. These 63 persons occupy 13,576 square feet of 
office space on the second floor, resulting in 
approximately 215.5 square feet per person. As previously 
noted, the proposed lease amendment would not include 
the 4,678 square feet of space on the seventh floor 
currently occupied by MTA. The 4,678 square feet would 
be included in a separate lease between MTA and the 
lessor beginning January 1, 2002. 

5. According to Mr. Lee, sufficient funds have been 
appropriated in DHR's FY 2001-2002 budget to pay for 
DHR's portion of base rent and additional costs of 
$381,078.50. This amount, $381,078.50, is the sum of 
$136,710.50 ($22,807 per month) in base rent and 
additional costs for the period from July 1, 2001 through 
December 31, 2001 under the existing lease and $244,368 
($40,728 per month) in base rent for the period from 
January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002 under the 
proposed lease extension. 



Recommendation: 



Approve the proposed resolution. 




Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell 
Clerk: GailJohnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, December 12, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 10:1 1 a.m. 



AGENDA CHANGES 



Supervisor Leno announced that Item 5 would be taken out of order and considered last. 



REGULAR AGENDA 



011818 [Reserved Funds, Human Resources Department] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources (Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget), 

in the amount of SI 5,260,220 to fund the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP) on 

reserve for six months. (Human Resources Department) 

1 1/9/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the November 28. 2001 

meeting. 

12/5/01, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. 

Continued to December 12, 2001, meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Geoffrey Rothman. Director, Employee 
Relations Division, Department of Human Resources; Edward Harrington, Controller. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $2,543,370 (1/6 of funds requested) approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:11 PM on i .? 04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes December 12, 2001 



01 1939 [Japan Center Garage Public Parking Lease between CCSF and San Francisco Japan Center Garage 
Corporation] 

Resolution approving the Japan Center Garage Public Parking Lease by and between the City and County of 

San Francisco and the City of San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation. (Parking and Traffic 

Department) 

10/31/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ronald Szeto, Acting Director, Parking 
Authority, Department of Parking and Traffic; Jeff Mori, President, Japan Center Parking Corporation; Rob 
Eshelman. Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Gonzalez; Judi Nihei, Acting Executive Director, Japantown 
Task Force, Inc. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012116 [Approval of Amendment(s) to Design Agreement for the Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement 
Program] 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute amendment(s) to a design agreement for the 
Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement Program from $7,599,717 to 529,900,000. (Public Works Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 1/28/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Michael Lane, Program Manager, Laguna 
Honda Hospital Replacement Program. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012063 [Mayor's Budget Instructions] 
Supervisors Peskin, Leno 

Hearing on the Mayor's Budget instructions to City Departments for the 2002-03 budget. This hearing will be 
held upon release of the Mayor's Budget instructions. 
1 1/13/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office; John Avolos, Coleman Advocates for 
Children and Youth; Margaret Brodkin, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Ilena Menakin, People's 
Budget; Glynn Washington, Human Services Network; Steve Bingham; Charles Marsteller; Ginny Vida, 
Executive Director, Ethics Commission; John Bardis. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:11 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 12, 2001 



011765 [Changing Travel Patterns and Commerce] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Hearing concerning the impact on changing travel patterns and commerce on the economic circumstances of 

the San Francisco International Airport, including the Airport's revenue, expenses and major project plans - 

including the San Francisco International Terminal. 

10/1/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration as soon as 

possible. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director; Leo Fermin, 
Associate Deputy Airport Director, Business and Finance; David Lewis, Executive Director, Save the Bay; 
Eileen Boken, Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK); Eric Saddik, Sierra Club; Amy 
Quirk, Alliance for a Clean Waterfront; John Bardis. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



010506 [Supplemental Appropriation] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Hearing regarding upcoming supplemental appropriations comprised of a report by the City Controller on 
supplemental budgetary items, reprogramming of funds within Departments, and other previously unforeseen 
fiscal actions by City Departments that will be brought before the Finance Committee. 
3/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/16/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; John Bardis. 
1 1/26/01, FILED PURSUANT TO RULE 5.38. 

12/3/01, REACTIVATED PURSUANT TO RULE 5.24. Supervisor Peskin requested this matter be reactivated, allowing the Controller 
and Mayor's Budget Office to report on the fiscal health of City departments in the current 2001-02 fiscal year. 
12/3/01, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Mike Hennessey, Sheriff; Supervisor Daly; 
Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 2:16 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:1 1 P\f on 3 3 04 



25 
i/o» 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



JBOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: jBudget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-1818 



December 6, 2001 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
DEC 1 1 2001 



SAN FRANCISCO 
p UBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee meeting of 
December 5, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Hearing to request release of $15,260,220 placed on 
reserve in the FY 2001-2002 budget of 36 City 
Departments by the Board of Supervisors to fund 
six months of salaries and fringe benefits for the 
period from January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002 
for 276 Special Assistant positions which were 
preliminarily allocated into new management 
classifications under the Citywide Management 
Classification/Compensation Plan, effective July 1, 
2001. 

$15,260,220 

FY 2001-2002 budget of 36 City Departments 

Pending a review by the Finance Committee of the 
reclassification of 276 Special Assistant positions 
represented by the Municipal Employees 
Association (ME A), the Board of Supervisors, in 
accordance with the Finance Committee's 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

recommendations, placed a reserve of $15,260,220 
in the FY 2001-2002 budget of 36 City Departments 
to fund six months of salaries and fringe benefits 
for the period from January 1, 2002 through June 
30, 2002 for 276 former Special Assistant positions 
represented by the MEA. Under the Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) between the City and 
MEA previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, which is effective from July 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2003, the DHR created a new 
series of 15 management classifications under the 
MCCP (shown in Attachment I) and preliminarily 
allocated the 276 Special Assistant positions into 
the 15 new management classifications, effective 
July 1, 2001. 

The Board of Supervisors instructed DHR to review 
the subject positions to determine if the positions 
should be classified as exempt positions or be 
subject to Civil Service procedures within 45 
working days of July 1, 2001. DHR submitted the 
list of 276 Special Assistant positions, including 
their recommended status as exempt or provisional 
positions, to the Board of Supervisors on September 
7, 2001, or 48 working days after July 1, 2001. 
Attachment II, provided by DHR, is a list of 276 
filled Special Assistant positions in 36 City 
departments that were reclassified from Special 
Assistant to management classifications under the 
MCCP on July 1, 2001. 

The 276 Special Assistant positions represented by 
MEA were moved into the 15 new management 
classifications under the MCCP on July 1, 2001. 
Approval of the requested release of $15,260,220 
would fund the salaries and fringe benefits for 
these positions for the six-month period from 
January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Robert Pritchard of DHR, DHR 

reviewed all 276 Special Assistant positions, which 
are represented by MEA and were preliminarily 
allocated into the new management classifications 
on July 1, 2001, to determine if these positions 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



were classified as exempt or as subject to Civil 
Service procedures. Those positions, which were 
identified as subject to Civil Service procedures, 
were to have provisional appointments. Provisional 
Civil Service appointments are made when a 
competitive examination process has not been 
completed and no eligible list is available. 
Positions exempt from Civil Service are specifically 
identified in the City Charter. Charter Section 
10.104 permits 19 categories of exempt 
appointments divided into three groupings. 
Charter Sections 10.104-1 through 10.104-12 
contain 12 categories of exempt appointments 
ranging from new authorizations (e.g., "all 
supervisory and policy-level positions within the 
Office of the Mayor and the Office of the City 
Administrator") to the continuation of many of the 
exempt positions authorized by the 1932 Charter, 
such as commission secretaries, department heads, 
and members of boards and commissions. Charter 
Sections 10.104-13 through 10.104-15 contain three 
categories of exempt positions, which include 
attorneys, most physicians and dentists, the 
Employee Retirement System Actuary, and 
Assistant Sheriff. Charter Sections 10.104-1.6 
through 10.104-19 contain four categories of 
exempt positions for part-time, seasonal, 
temporary, substitute, and disabled positions. 

2. Mr. Pritchard states that DHR originally 
reviewed the 276 Special Assistant positions 
represented by MEA (of which, originally, 256 were 
exempt and 20 were provisional) and determined in 
the preliminary allocation process that of these 276 
positions, 83 should be exempt and 193 should be 
provisional. After the further review requested by 
the Finance Committee, DHR determined that 11 
of the 276 former Special Assistant positions that 
were preliminarily allocated as exempt positions 
prior to July 1, 2001, should instead be classified 
into provisional Civil Service positions and that 5 
of the 276 former Special Assistant positions that 
were preliminarily allocated as Civil Service 
positions prior to July 1, 2001, should be classified 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



as exempt positions. Therefore, in total, DHR has 
identified 81 positions, or 29.3 percent, of the 
subject 276 positions as exempt positions, which 
includes five positions that should be reclassified 
from provisional Civil Service positions to exempt 
positions and 76 positions that were already 
classified as exempt positions. The balance of 195 
(276 less 81) are provisional positions. Attachment 
II shows the 81 exempt positions and the Charter 
Section covering the position. 

3. Mr. Pritchard advises that 272 of the 276 subject 
positions were moved laterally into a new 
management classification with no change in pay. 
Two of the 276 subject positions were moved from 
lower Special Assistant classes into higher MCCP 
pay grades. According to Mr. Pritchard, the 
movement of these two positions into higher MCCP 
pay grades was required because these positions 
were allocated to Deputy Director or Department 
Head positions and no equivalent MCCP pay grade 
exists. One 1376 Special Assistant in the Business 
and Economic Development Department was 
allocated to a 0953 Deputy Director III (equivalent 
to a 1377 Special Assistant) and placed at an 
increased salary of $90 biweekly or $2,349 
annually. One 1377 Special Assistant in the 
Department of Aging was allocated to a 0962 
Department Head II (equivalent to a 1378 Special 
Assistant) and placed at an increased salary of $81 
biweekly or $2,114 annually. 

4. Mr. Pritchard advises that two of the 276 
positions were allocated to lower equivalent MCCP 
pay grades because there were no equivalent 
MCCP pay grades for these positions. One 1375 
Special Assistant in the Department of Aging was 
allocated to a 0952 Deputy Director II (equivalent 
to a 1374 Special Assistant) and placed at an 
increased salary of $85 biweekly or $2,219 
annually. According to Mr. Pritchard, DHR placed 
the incumbent of the 1375 Special Assistant 
position in a salary step that resulted in an actual 
pay increase of $85 biweekly even though the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



position was moved to the lower pay grade of a 
0952 Deputy Director II in order to prevent a pay 
decrease for the incumbent. One 1376 Special 
Assistant in the Department of Elections was 
allocated to a 0954 Deputy Director II (equivalent 
to a 1374 Special Assistant) and placed at a salary 
step, which equaled the incumbent's existing rate 
of pay, in order to result in no pay decrease. 

5. The total current increased salary cost of 
allocating these four Special Assistant positions to 
MCCP pay grades that are not equivalent to the 
Special Assistant pay grades is $256 biweekly or 
$6,682 annually. 

6. The Board of Supervisors instructed DHR to 
show that (a) each of the 276 former Special 
Assistant positions had been appropriately 
classified into new management positions under 
the the MCCP, (b) each of the 276 former Special 
Assistant positions had been reclassified as Civil 
Service positions, based on minimum qualification 
requirements and based on a competitive selection 
process, and (c) specific criteria had been developed 
for each classification created by the MCCP. 

7. As of the writing of this report, DHR is 
continuing to negotiate with MEA regarding the 
implementation of the MCCP, and has not reached 
agreement with MEA at this time regarding the 
implementation of the MCCP and the new series of 
management classifications. Mr. Pritchard advises 
that, if DHR and MEA do not reach agreement 
regarding implementation of the MCCP and the 
new series of management classifications, DHR will 
conduct a job analysis in order to again reclassify 
the 276 former Special Assistant positions. Mr. 
Pritchard states that DHR has not yet established 
a timeline and implementation plan for once again 
reclassifying the subject 276 former Special 
Assistant positions into permanent Civil Service 
classifications. Mr. Pritchard advises that 
reclassifying the 276 former Special Assistant 
positions into permanent Civil Service 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



classifications, instead of using the new 
management classifications under the MCCP, will 
require DHR to evaluate the current job duties of 
each position and assign that position to the 
appropriate existing Civil Service classification. 
According to Mr. Pritchard, many of the 276 former 
Special Assistant positions will have job duties that 
do not coincide with existing Civil Service 
classifications, and DHR will be required to create 
new Civil Service classifications to accommodate 
the job duties of the position. 

8. Any reclassification of the 276 former Special 
Assistant positions into existing or new Civil 
Service positions, resulting in increased salary 
costs, will be subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval. Under the Administrative Provision of 
the Annual Salary Ordinance, Section 1.1B, the 
Human Resources Director has authority to change 
the classification of a position, without obtaining 
approval of the Board of Supervisors, provided that 
the rate of pay is the same or less. In the initial 
Budget Analyst report to the Finance Committee, 
the Budget Analyst recommended that the 
reclassification of the 276 positions into new or 
existing Civil Service classifications be submitted 
to the Board of Supervisors for approval. According 
to Ms. Molly Stump of the City Attorney's Office, 
Charter Section 10.101 gives jurisdiction regarding 
classifications to the Civil Service Commission. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends, due to 
the scope of the reclassification of the 276 positions 
into new or existing Civil Service classifications, 
that DHR submit a report to the Board of 
Supervisors detailing the reclassification of all 276 
former Special Assistant positions upon completion 
of the reclassification. Any positions resulting in 
an increase in salary would be subject to Board of 
Supervisors approval. The Budget Analyst further 
recommends that DHR submit bimonthly reports to 
the Board of Supervisors on the status of the 
reclassification of the 276 positions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

9. According to Ms. Andrea Gourdine of DHR, if 
the Board of Supervisors does not approve the 
requested release of $15,260,220 to fund six months 
of salaries and fringe benefits for the subject 276 
positions for the period from January 1, 2002 
through June 30, 2002, the incumbents of these 276 
positions will be laid off. 

Recommendations: 1. Direct a letter to the DHR, requiring that the 

DHR submit bimonthly reports to the Board of 
Supervisors on the status of the reclassification of 
the 276 former Special Assistant positions into 
existing or new Civil Service positions, as noted in 
Comment 8. 

2. Direct a letter to the DHR, requiring a that the 
DHR submit a report to the Board of Supervisors 
detailing the reclassification of all 276 former 
Special Assistant positions upon completion of the 
reclassification. Any positions resulting in an 
increase in salary would be subject to Board of 
Supervisors approval, as noted in Comment 8. 

3. Approval of the requested release of reserved 
funds in the amount of $15,260,220 to fund six 
months of salaries and fringe benefits for the 276 
Special Assistant positions is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET .ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Appendix C 



Rates 6/30/01 



Class Title and 
Job Code 


Pay Grade 


Range 
A 






step 1 


step 2 


step 3 


step 
4 


step 5 


step 6 


step 7 


Manager 1 (0911) 


1 


1736 


1823 


1914 


2009 


2110 


2215 


2326 


Manager II (0912) 


2 


1876 


1970 


2069 


2172 


2281 


2395 


2514 


Manager III (0913) 


3 


2019 


2120 


2226 


2337 


2454 


2577 


2706 


Manager IV (0921) 


4 


2172 


2281 


2395 


2514 


2640 


2772 


2910 


Manager V (0922) 

Deputy Director I 
(0951) 


5 


2303 


2418 


2539 


2666 


2800 


2940 


3087 


Manager VI (0923) 


6 


2478 


2602 


2732 


2868 


3012 


3162 


3320 


Manager VII (0931) 
Deputy Director II 
(0952) 


7 


2666 


2800 


2940 


3087 


3241 


3403 


3574 


Manager VIII (0932) 
Department Head I 
(0961) 


8 


2868 


3012 


3162 


3320 


3486 


3661 


3844 


Manager IX (0933) 


9 


3087 


3241 


3403 


3574 


3752 


3940 


4137 


Manager X (0941) 
Deputy Director III 
(0953) 


10 


3320 


3486 


3661 


3844 


4036 


4238 


4449 


Manager XI (0942) 
Department Head II 
(0962) 


11 


3547 


3724 


3910 


4106 


4311 


4527 


4753 


Deputy Director IV 
(0954) Department 
Head III (0963) 


12 


3777 


3966 


4164 


4372 


4591 


4821 


5062 


Manager XII (0943) 
Deputy Director V 
(0955) 


13 


4028 


4229 


4440 


4662 


4895 


5140 


5397 


Department Head IV 
(0964) 


14 


4334 


4551 


4779 


5018 


5269 


5532 


5809 




15 


4662 


4895 


5140 


5397 


5667 


5950 


6247 




16 


5018 


5269 


5532 


5809 


6099 


6404 


6725 


Department Head V 
(0965) 


17 


5397 


5667 


5950 


6247 


6560 


6888 


7232 



City and County of San Francisco and 

Municipal Executives Association 

July 1,2001 -June 30, 2003 

8 





























































"v-mic 




















































"c 








Page 




' c 




c 


c! 


c 


c 






































CD 












— o 




b o 


S O 


~ o 


^ -2 






































E 












> S3 




> 35 


> 33 


> 33 




















































CJ TO 




'a re 


'o re 


'o re 


'u co 






































o 








































































o c 




o c 


o c 


o c 


o c 


















































— a 




— a> 


— CD 


— CD 


— CD 


















































u E 




o E 


o E 


O E 


O E 






































LU 








CD 




cd © 




CD CD 


CD CD 


CD <3) 


CD CD 














































x: 
































































XJ Q. 




xi cl 


— a. 


XI CL 


XJ CL 






































o 








1— 




5.1 




3 E 


SI 


ifl .1 


5.1 






































c: 








CO 
CD 
CO 




© CL 




CD CL 


CD Q_ 


Q) CL 


CD Q_ 






































CD 

E 
■c 
ro 

CL 










■° o 




■2 o 


■Q O 


■o o 


■° o 












































CD 




2 O 

3 2 




2 O 

3 2 


2 O 

3 2 


2 O 

3 S 


2 U 

3 2 












































x: 
c 




O 




O _ 


o ... 


o „, 


o -, 






































CD 












x: cd 




£ CD 


JC © 


£ CD 


x: cd 






































a 








CD 

CL 




co £ 




to £ 


CO XT 


co £ 


co x: 








































































































c ■— 




c It 


c u- 


C If 


c — 






































CD 








c 




o o 




o o 


o o 


o o 


o o 






































T3 










•~ o 




— O 


i- o 


:— o 


:— o 






































C 








•a 




S5 5 




2 3 


8 s 


S 5 


S 5 






































3 








CD 




S il- 
ea, *~ 




a. r~ 


CL r- 


CL K 


CL I - 






































CD 








C 

'ro 




CO S 




CO g 


co 


M S 


w S 






































O 










■ — CO 






— • CO 


— CO 


— CO 






































E 








c 




£ TO 
TO B- 




£ re 
*" x: 
re CL 


£ re 
re Cl 


x: re 

x: 

re Cl 


£ re 

x: 
re CL 




















2^ 
























o 
o 

JO 




CO £ 




£ CD 

a 2 


£ cn 

CO £ 


£ en 

CO £ 


£ CD 
CO c 












X 




CO 

o 
a 




ro 

CO 










CO 

CD 
U 




CO 

CD 
O 




CO 

c 








CO 
_3 




5 3 




S 3 


£ 3 


£ 3 


£ 3 


Cfl 

E 

ro 












£ 




a 










e 




£ 




o 








re 




re -o 




re "O 


re "O 


re "o 


re "a 












CD 




c 




c 






CD 




CD 




CO 

o 












.2 n 




.2 -o 


2 -o 


2 -o 


.2 -o 










CD 




CO 




o 




CD 






CO 




co 










c 
o 




"o a) 




■D CD 


T3 CD 
C L= 


■d a> 


T3 CD 

C S= 


en 

a 










O 

c 

ro 
c 

LL. 

a 




CD 
> 

re 
"co 
C 




CD 

o 




E 

CD 






CD 
> 

"re 
% 

c 




CD 
> 

rc 
"co 
C 




CL 










£ « 

re ro 
XJ o 
o CD 




£ "& 
re re 
•o o 
O 


re re 

O CD 


re re 
■o u 
O CD 


£ S 

re re 
-o o 

O CD 


a. 

en 
C 
T3 


CD 
O 












O 

y 



>. 

ro 




en 
re 
c 
cc 
5 










£ 

to 

ro 








CO 

O 

CL 




** XJ 
a> _ 

-° '5 
re > 




of 


»f 

■8 s 


*" XI 
CD _ 

a > 

re > 


of 

■S s 


>. 

o 

CD 


c 

3 

O 

O 








en 
•o 

3 

CD 




E 
■a 
< 






CO 

cr: 






E 

< 




E 

< 




■g 
"5 

CO 




"3 




CD 
CD 

C 

ro 


11 




15 


5.1 


11 


15 


o 


o 








o 




o 




o 











O 




o 




o 


O 


re 

CD 


o 


x: 

CJ 












































I 






re •- 




re •- 


re — 


re ••= 


re .- 


u 


o 








o 




a 




CJ 




o 






CJ 




u 




o 


o 


"5 


"O 


n 


,- <" 




r- <° 


r- M 


r- "> 


,- " 


CD 


CD 








CD 




CD 




CD 




o 






CD 




CD 




CD 


CD 




CD 


CD 


o 

—> 
a 
u 

O 


c o 




c o 


E o 


E o 


£ o 










































3 




T3 


■2 cl 




•2 cl 


•2 Cl 


•2 cl 


•2 cl 


S 


a 








5 




a 




a 




a 






5 




5 




5 


c5 


co 

E 
— 

re 


5 


C 
CD 


re b" 




re if 


re qj" 


re iu 


re J, 


>~ 


>. 








>- 




>~ 




_>- 




>• 






j>- 




_>. 




^ 


^ 


_>-- 


E 
E 
o 


E o 




E o 


E o 


E o 


E o 


3 


3 








3 




3 




3 




3 






3 




3 




3 


3 


3 


*o* 


o £ 




o £ 


o S 


6 £ 


o 2 


CL 


Cl 








CL 




CL 




CL 




Cl 






Cl 




CL 




Q. 


Cl 


Cl 


CL 




.= CO 




±: co 


i co 


-b co 


"- CO 


CD 


CD 













CD 




0) 




CD 






CD 




CD 




CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 




CL 




a 


Q 








a 




D 




a 




D 






D 




a 




O 


a 


Q 


Q 


CD 




























































CD 

x: 
h- 


£■ 


,_ 




,_ 


CO 


,_ 


,_ 


,_ 


,_ 








T_ 


co 
q 


,_ 


CD 

q 


r. 


CO 
O 


^- 


co 
q 




,_ 


CO 

q 


,_ 


co 
q 


CO 


co 


LO 


CO 


o 




o 




O 


o 


o 


o 








q 


q 


q 


q 




q 


o 


q 


o 


q 


q 




o 

en 
® 
re 
O 


■<r 




•<3" 


■«■ 


T 


* 


■q- 


>• 








■* 


o 


•« 


2 


^r 


^ 


T 


o 




3 


o 


^r 


*cf 


•^ 


T 


s 


^r 


>' 


o ~ 




O -~ 


o —. 


o -^ 


O ■-■ 


O 


o 








o 


o 




o 




o 






O 




O 




o 


O 


o 


o 


D. 


«- < 
=> z 


< 


<- < 


•- < 
o z 


«- < 
o z 


o z 


ce> 


C) 


< 

Z 


< 

Z 


< 

Z 


C5 


d 


a 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


< 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


o : 


co ■ 

re | 

CD 2 
1= o 




























































(A 


























































'.= o 


3 

re 






x c- 


x c 


x c- 

St 


x c 


X 


X 








X 




X 




X 




X 






X 




X 




X 


X 


X 


X 


cd cr 


> 


LU 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


LU 




LU 




LU 




LU 




> 


LU 




LU 




LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


"O o 


So 


CL 


Q. 


Q- 


a. 


Cl 


CL 


D. 




CL 




Cl 




CL 




CL 


CL 




CL 




CL 


Cl 


CL 


CL 


'cd S 1 




























































re ro 




























































CO « 




























, , 




^^ 




^.^ 




e_~ 










^^ 






— 




C CD 




























— 




— 




= 




= 






> 




> 


= 




■a 


— 


.9 £ 
























































ro 

CD 
































o 




_o 




a 




_o 






_o 




o 








"co C 




































~ 
















O 


o 


O 


c!^ 

CD 




















— 


— 


— 


— 


o 


— 


o 

CD 




CD 




o 

CD 




_ 


s 


_ 


o 

CD 


CD 

i5 


u 
m 

c5 


X 


CJ 
CD 

c5 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


D 


> 


Q 


X 


5 


X 


3 


X 


X 


c5 


X 


a 


c 

CD 


ro c= 

II 

> — 
P .!2 




CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


a 


CD 


5 


5 


CD 


CD 


^. 


CD 


^- 


5 


>. 


CD 


^. 


CD 


CD 


^i 


CD 


>> 






E 






CD 


a 


O) 


O) 


CD 


CD 


en 


en 


en 


en 


en 


en 


3 

a, 

CD 

Q 


en 


3 
Cl 
CD 

D 


en 


3 
Cl 
■ 


cn 


3 
CL 
CD 

Q 


a> 


OB 


3 

CL 
CD 

Q 


a 


3 
Cl 
CD 

Q 


>• 


>~ 


fi 


2^ 




re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


ro 


re 


re 


re 


ro 


re 


re 


ro 


ro 


3 


3 


re 




o 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


CJ. 


CL 


Cl 


CL 




re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


ro 


CD 


CD 


CD 


o 


P 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


5 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


a 


Q 


D 


D 


CL CO 




























































1.1 

ro S 

x S 


o P 


CM 


CN 


CM 


C*5 


co 


CO 


c-> 


_ 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CN 


CN? 
LO 

an 
o 


CN 


csT 

in 

en 
o 


ro 


cn" 

LO 

o 


,. 


m 

LO 

on 

a 


CN 


CO 


LO 
LO 
CT> 

o 


ro 


lo" 

LO 

en 
o 


CO 


r- 


CN 


cv 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CN 


CO 


CO 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CO 


rO 


TT 


■fl- 


5 


rr 


LO 


LO 


CO 


LT 


OJ 


a 


o> 


o> 


CD 


a> 


cn 


en 


<Ji 


en 


en 


on 


ro 


ffl 


cn 


O) 


db 


a 


CT> 


an 


cn 


cn 


LU — 


-> o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


°- a 


-° - 


























































co 2- 
ro t 


o -2 


CN 


CM 


CN 


ro 


co 


CO 


PS 


rr 


en 


LO 


LT 


LO 




en 




CO 




r- 




co 










!•» 


CO 


r~ 


LO 


CD cU 

§ C3J 

c c 


■s 12 


h- 




r-~ 


r^ 


r^ 


r^- 


K 


r~- 


r-- 


r»» 


r~ 


r- 




N 




r^ 




h- 




r- 


an 




CO 




h- 


r- 


N. 


r- 


Crt 


co 


n 


CO 


m 


co 


co 


to 


CO 


ro 


CO 


ro 


m 




ro 




ro» 




ro 




co 


ro 




ro 




co 


m 


m 


ro 




























































il 

fil 




co 


























































0) 

o 
























































ro o 
co re 




2 
























































£ c 




CD 
























































•2 o 




CO 
























































CO o 




CD 
























































O CD 


c 


-g 
























































Q.C0 


9 

E 


re 
























































CL CD 


"cO 
























































E r 


r 


'c 
























































cd re 


re 


















































en 






x x: 


Q. 


J 


















































C 






LU O 


a> 


■D 


















































cn 








a 


< 


















































< 









of ] 



-i-acnmenu 



E = 



c E 
ro o 



c/> 


o 


,- 








<Sl 


c 






o 




< 

n 




o 


o 

ID 


L_ 


a> 


in 


o 


0. 


(/) 




03 


ro 




o 


O 




s 


c 




o 


a> 




> 


E 




o 


(U 




a. 


a 







(0 

a 










































































Page 2 




g 










































































CN 


















































































Q. 














































































E 














































































0) 










































































D 




X 








































































- 






LU 








































































h 






IT) 











































































U 




^ 















































































|1 








































































. 












































































" 






1 E 










































































j 
















































































u E 

-x. o 










































































3 

3. 




E° 
a ?! 








































































j 












































































- 


3 




x .y 










































































3 




* £ 








































































' 






<D 05 










































































3 




-O CO 








































































' 






"O := 










































































5 




S > 
o O 


















c 
























































3 




















ro 
























































3 




c 


















cn 




























































co <D 

-a = 

7 =- 


















Cfl 

cn 

< 






















































* 


3 
3 

5 




CD .Q 


















D 
























































5 




1 X> 


















> 




























































c ^ 
O o 

-r tt 


















3 
u 

CD 
X 

LU 
























































5 
3 

L 




S ™ 














































































5 O 




£r 














£r 






















































_ 


j 




D TH 




CQ 














ro 
























































33 


_a> 


T3 
Q- "55 




U 














CD 
U 






















































. 


5 


P 


E § 
cd S- 




CO 














CU 
CO 






















































1 


3 

3 


J3 


>= ST 




c 






































































J 


o 


0) 2 




^g 














ro 






















































•[ 


5 


—> 
is 
U 


ro q) 




en 

E 
E 
o 














c 

cu 
























































a 




if 

O o 
















c 
o 
























































3 
5 


ct 


O c 




O 














U 
























































j 














































































j 


£> 


o 




-3" 

q 














CO 

q 






















































j 




o 


o 




o 














o 






















































1 


>' 


ro 


< 5 


< 


1— 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


T— 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


o ^ 


































































13 = 


O 


2 C 


z 


*- 


2 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


■■- 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


2| 
























































































































































| 


: O 


(A 










































































' 


s o 


3 


X 

■> LU 




X 














X 
























































5 £« 


iS 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> n 


3 O 


C/3 


D. 


0. 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


D_ 


CL 


CL 


0_ 


CL 


Cl 


D. 


CL 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


D | 


























































































































































3 ro 














































































> " 




— 










































































: » 

3 £ 




"D 














































































ro 

e 

X 








































































" 


c 












































































. CD 




c 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


2 SE 




Q 














































































E 


cu 


<d 


cd 


CD 


CU 


cu 


CD 


cu 


CU 


CU 


CU 


CU 


a> 


cu 


CD 


0) 


Q) 


cu 


cu 


IB 


CD 


CU 


CD 


CD 


CD 


cu 


cu 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


cu 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CU 


2 S 

2 "8 

> — 

3 CO 




t 


n 


a 


a 


a 


at 


a 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


CO 


cn 


a 


09 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


ccn 


a 


cn 


cn 


cn 




ro 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


re 


re 


ro 


ro 


rc 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


re 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CD 


Q. 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


tc 


c 


C 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 




o 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


re 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


co 


ro 


ro 


co 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


F 


O 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


S 


^ 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


5 


2 


5 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


5 


5 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


i co 














































































2 o 


o o 












































































5 as 




CM 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CN 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 


' !5 


co 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


& 


1 S 


a 


CD 


co 


CO 


01 


O) 


CO 


cn 


CD 


o> 


a 


03 


CD 


cn 


CD 


cn 


CD 


03 


cn 


<J> 


cn 


cn 


CO 


03 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CO 


cn 


cn 


CO 


CO 


OS 


CT> 


cn 


S 


J Q. 


-> o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


Q 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


CD 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


c£ 


if 


■° m 












































































° -S 


CO 


CN 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CN 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


P 


1 S 


"» 15 


f- 


r- 


r- 


r^ 




r^ 




I-- 


Is. 


r- 


r«- 


h- 








t»- 


r^ 




r- 


r^- 


r^- 


N 


r- 


r^ 


r- 


K 


r- 


r^ 


r~- 


r^~ 


r^ 


r^ 


N 




r^ 


c- 


2 Ed 

: .c 


C/3 


m 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


co 


CO 


co 


co 


CO 


co 


CO 


co 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




























































































































































i 


3 -c 














































































»l 














































































3 














































































D CO 






a 








































































J! 












































































_ 








to 






































































" 














































































5 o 






E 









































































3 CD 


c 










































































3. CO 


0) 


CD 






































































' 


3- CD 


E 


_3 


O 








































































e e 


r 

ro 

a. 


3 


r 

o 

Q. 






































































L 


3 CD 

J O 


o 


CO 












































































1 D 


< 


< 











































































10 



— 


c 




o 


ro 




c 


a. 




— 


c 




■D 


o 




0> 






> 


ro 




o 


in 




E 


c 

ID 




1/5 


a 




c 


h 




ro 

0> 


o 
o 


T _ 








w 


c 




(/) 


o 




< 

"<5 


ro 
o 


o 


o 

Q) 


li- 


<X> 


lt 


o 


a. 


w 




co 


TO 




o 


o 




* 


c 




a> 


CD 




> 


E 




CD 


CD 




K 


O) 



















































































'""aiL 11 
















































































^age 3 oJ 
















































































CO 
















































































CD 
















































































n. 
















































































— 
















































































ui 
















































































Q) 
















































































CO 
















































































03 
















































































£ 
































































































































































c 
















































































CD 
































































































































































(0 
















































































Q. 
















































































C 
















































































■o 
















































































CD 
















































































c 
















































































ro 
































































































































































c 
















































































o 
















































































o 
















































































S2 
















































































CO 
















































































3 
































































































































































ro 
































































































































































(0 
















































































c 
















































































g 
































































































































































GO 
















































































o 
















































u 
































a. 
















































CD 
O 
































c 
















































a 
































CD 
CO 

c 


03 














































CD 
































ro 
















































CD 
































c 
















































>, 
































o 


H 














































O 
































D 


-O 














































a 
































CD 


o 














































E 
































O 


-j 














































CD 
































C 


s 














































































CD 


o 














































•o 
































E 


a 














































_£ 
































E 


"o" 














































0) 
































o 
o 


lv 














































cr 
































CD 

































































































































































c 


£> 














































CO 
































— 


o 

0) 














































o 
































> 


To 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


05 ^ 














































o 
































ro | 


o 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 




Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 






























































































































































= o 


in 














































































— u 


3 














































X 
































i * 


(0 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


T3 O 


55 


D. 


D. 


Q_ 


Q. 


a 


a. 


a. 


D. 


D- 


D. 


a. 


Q. 


0. 


a. 


a. 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


D_ 


Cl 


CL 


h- 


Cl 


CL 


CL 


Cl 


a. 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


gd a? 
































































































































































ro ro 
















































































CO 3 
















































































C CD 
















































































o j: 
































































































































































55 c 
































_ 


_ 














































a "8 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


CD 

ro c= 




CD 


CD 


a> 


CD 


a> 


a 


a> 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 





CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


2 g 

> — 




CO 


a 


a 


cr. 


cr 


en 


a 


a 


co 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


a 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CO 


co 


CD 


co 


CO 


CO 




CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


ro 


_« 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


C 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


C 


cr 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 




ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


P 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


^ 


5 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


5 


5 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


CL 00 
















































































0) 

° & 














































































ro •■= 






























CM 


CM 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


00 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 




>< s 


ro 


ro 


pj 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


T 


coo 


en 


O0 


coo 


CO 


a> 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


130 


CD 


coo 


coo 


coo 


CO 


oo 


CD 


CO 


coo 


CO 


C30 


CO 


coo 


coo 


coo 


coo 


oo 


CO 


oo 


11 Q. 


-> o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


ro c 


■° », 














































































Q CD 


-T 


T 


>» 


T 


"3- 


T 


•<r 


TT 


rr 


^r 


rr 


T 


^3" 


^r 


m 


cn 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


N 


_ CD 
CD cp 


~> 15 


r^ 


r- 


n- 


r- 


r- 






N, 


r~ 


r~- 


h- 


r- 






r- 


fv 


r- 


t-~ 


f» 


r~ 


IV 


r- 


r- 




r- 


r- 


r- 


r^. 


r~ 


r- 


r~ 


r- 


r- 


r- 


r~ 


r^ 


r~ 


N 


<<5 

10 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


m 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 














































































C C 
















































































ii 






























































































































































9?£ 
















































































ro 5 
















































































oo ro 
















































































c c 
















































































2 o 
































































































































































05 O 
















































































O ® 


e 














































































CL C/) 


■ 

E 














































































CL CD 

E -c 


■c 














































































cd ro 


ro 














































































x ^ 


a. 














































































U O 


■ 
















































































a 

















































































11 



Accacnmenc 11 



_ 


c 







re 




c 


0. 




■~ 


C 







o 




a 






> 






o 


in 




E 


0) 




in 


Q. 




c 


h 




re 


n, 










t/> 


O 










(/) 


c 
o 


o 


< 
"re 


re 
u 


o 


o 

CD 


^ 


<T> 


</> 


O 


Q. 


l/l 




(73 


re 




O 


O 




* 


B 




CD 


CD 




> 


E 




CD 


01 




or 


CJ) 

re 




w 


c 




3 


re 




re 


5 













































Q. 




to 








Pape 4 oi 








































Q. 


ca 




jz 
















































CD 






CO 
















































O 


_c 




CC 


>. 






•v 








































_C 








u 














































o 

c 

xi to 
«o m 

o .2 


o 

c 

CO 

Is 

« ro 
£•« 

2, c 

"ro cl 




ro 
O) "o 

E "O 
E ro 
— o 

cd m 

£ CD 

o £ 

« 1? 

u - 
c -o 
ro cd 


o 

Cl 
CO 
C 
'cl 

o 

CD 
> 

a 

T3 

-o 

C 






CD 

x: 

10 
CD 
to 
CD 

x: 
c 

CD 








































o E 

-■ CD 




ro 

CD) 






ro 
o. 








































2- x 




TD "^ 


c 






c 








































Q. « 


E a> 




•— C 


'c 














































E CD 


111 ^ 

X O 




S>'ci 


'oi 






"CD 
CD 








































CD — 


CD _^ 




r Cl-O 






C 








































CD ro 


cd ro 




CD ro 








'ro 






































c 


> 
CD O 

f Q. 


1- 




E ^ 

CD ZZ. 
CO ,- 


CO 

c 






c 
o 
o 






































ro 


■D CL 




ro !2 














































CO 


3 CO 




C 


c 






— 






































to 

CO 

< 




CO c 

■d .2 
ro co 




ro _a 
E E 

U) CD 


CD 






1 
IS 






































CD 


o .i2 


CD co 




as E 


X) 






« 






































> 


o E 


X 'E 




1 m 


c 






c 






































3 


£ E 


= 1 




o 3. 


o 






1 






































CJ 
CD 


5(3 


0) o 




Q. O 
to >. 


ro 
2 


CO 

E 




to 
o 






































LU 


>• CD 


■d CD 




CD 

X) 


CD 




Cl 


a 


































■o 


ro 


D U 

o c_ 


ro o 




CO ^3 

CC ro 
ro O 


CO 
O 

a. 

CD 
O 




C 

CD 
CO 

c 
ro 




































ro 


o 


Q. "> 


"3. '> 




cdSS 


■o 


£ 




x: 


P 












o 




O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CD 


CD 


E O 

CD 2 


E O 

S CO 




c 




o 












o 




o 


o 


o 


u 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


I 


0} 




|| 


ro 


a 




T3 


o 












CD 




CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


3 


15 


CD £ 




o 

CO 

e 


T3 




CD 


-> 
u 












Q 
>■ 




(5 


5 




Q 




O 
>. 


a 


a 


> 


1 


c 

CD 


<o '5 

CO o~ 


!2 ' 5 

co cr 

— CD 




■2 I 

CD E 


C 
CD 
CO 




C 
0) 

E 


a> 












3 




3 


"3 


"3 


"3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


ro 


c: 


c 2. 


c c 




CD 


CD 




E 
o 


"o" 












a. 




a. 


CL 


Q. 


CL 


CL 


CL 


a. 


D. 


Q. 


Q. 


c 


3 -o 


3 T3 




CL 


3 














<u 




CD 


CD 


CD 





or 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


o 


o c 


o c 




.!= O 


u 


to 




a! 












Q 




Q 


a 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


a 


Q 


O 


O ro 


O ro 




Q O 


C7) 


en 




CD 


£- 












CD 




CD 


CO 


co 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


m 


CD 


q 


in 
q 












a 

£ 












o 




O 


q 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


q 


o 


q 




q 










o 

CO 

a 












TT 




t" 


■"3- 


•* 


Tt 


•^ 


■<J- 


■* 


■^ 


^r 


-s- 


•g- 


o 


o 




■<r 








> 












O 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




o 








CL 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


T 


< 


^~ 


*~ 


" r " 


*" 


*" 


,_ 


,_ 


T " 


T ~ 


' r " 


T_ 


< s 


< d 


< 


■*■; 






< 


(/) ^ 












O 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 








o 








CD | 


o 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 




2 
























2 ^. 


Z O 


2 








2 










































































































1= o 


3 

re 






































^^ 


, — . 












.= o 

cd cr 












X 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

^ UJ 




X 








> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


> 


UJ 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 


LU 


> 


UJ 






> 


■D O 


c7> 


Q_ 


a. 


CL 


OL 


CL 


CL 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


a 


D. 


Cl 


CL 


CL 


CL 


a 


Cl 


Cl 


CL 


CL 






CL 


'tD g? 






















































03 ro 






















































to « 




































_ 


















c a 
.2 £ 














> 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 





-o 




















































ro 


















to c 














o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


_o 


o 


O 


_o 


CD 


















o — 




































X 


















Q.-0 














CJ 




o 


o 


o 


o 


CJ 


o 


u 


o 


o 






























cd 




CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 
























X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




X 




















c 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 






> 


co «= 














i5 




Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


CD 

E 


















11 

> — 

O CO 




0) 


cd 


CD 


CD 


0) 




CD 




















CD 


a) 


CD 


CD 


CD 






CD 




ai 


o> 


en 


CO 


n 


27> 


CO 


j>. 


>> 


2? 


>* 


>? 


^> 


j>* 


>■ 


>. 


■c 


CD 


CO 


O) 


CJ) 


O) 






CJ) 




co 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


3 


ro 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


Cl 


3 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 






CD 




c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


CL 


£ 


CL 


Q- 


CL 


CL 


CD- 


CD- 


CL 


CD- 


CL 


CD- 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 






C 




ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CD 


ro 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


ro 


CO 


CO 


ro 


CD 






CD 




P 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Q 


5 


a 


Q 


a 


a 


Q 


a 


Q 


a 


Q 


o 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 






2 


o. en 






















































co .■= 
X cS 


a 
■° "S 
° ,^ 


,- 


,- 


,- 


^ 


C\J 


in 


ro 


in 


m 


in 


in 


in 


in 


in 


in 


^ 


,_ 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CM 


CM 






CM 


■>? 


t 


TT 


^r 


-7- 


LO 


^r 


LO 


en 


in 


in 


in 


in 


in 


m 


in 


CD 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 






CM 


CO 


oo 


en 


C0 


a> 


ro 


cj> 


en 


O) 


CO 


en 


CO 


CJ) 


a> 


en 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CD 


CJ) 


CJ) 


O) 






CJ) 


LU CL 


-5 O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


O 


O 






O 


"1 

ro t 


■ D «, 




















































o ® 


N 


r^ 


r- 


r— 


CD 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




CM 


in 


rsi 


CM 


CO 


CM 


CM 






CM 


S a, 
c c 


~> U 


r^ 


K 


N- 


I*. 


r^ 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CO 


f- 


r^- 


i^ 


t»~ 


f- 


l>- 


r^ 






N. 


CO 


ro 


co 


ro 


co 


co 


co 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


ro 


CO 


co 


CO 


co 






ro 






















































■si 










































































































E^ 






















































CO 3 




















































CO 
CD 


CO CO 

c c 












































_o 








~ 


•2 .2 


c 
o 

E 
































c 
o 

CO 

t/) 

E 
E 
o 
O 




O 


C CO 




ro 
to 

'c 
E 








"o 

CD 

u. - 

5 • 
■S E 

CD CO 

- i 


"to o 

O CD 
Q.C/3 

CL CD 

E t: 


r 

10 
Q. 


































to 
<o 

CD 
CO 


21 
1 E 




•o 
< 








CD CO 

x x: 

UJ O 


a 
































•c 




CO 


x: o 










o to 




a 
































< 




< 


o o 




O 








O 2 





12 



s 


c 




o 


TO 




c 


0. 




■o 


C 

o 




0) 


■^ 




> 


TO 




o 


US 




E 


c 
a> 




i/> 


a 




c 


fc 




TO 


o 




l/> 


u 


t— 








CO 


c 
o 


o 

CM 


< 




ITS 


ro 


u 


© 




^4_ 


as 


w 


o 


a 


W 




co 


TO 




o 


o 




% 


c 




CD 


0) 




> 


E 




0) 


a> 




a 


OS 















































































































































Page . 




> 

'o 


c 

g 

TO 
































































L 




o 


c 






































































CD 

E 


























































CD 










o 


























































^ 






CD 




<D 


IB 






























































£ 




JD 


O. 


























































O 






r- 




3 


E 


























































OS 






CO 




ID 


CL 


























































TO 






as 

CO 




.O 


o 


























































o 






as 




-o 


o 


























































£ 






c 




3 
o 

to 


2 
as 














































c 












"ro 

> 
o 






c 
CD 

ro 




c 
O 


o 














































ro 
"co 












a. 
a. 






c 






O 


























































CO 






■D 




a) 
o 
a 


r- 














































CO 

< 












c 
o 






as 






<D 


























































CO 






ro 






in 














































CD 












CO 






c 




TO 


TO 
-C 

n. 














































O 












1 

E 






o 
u 

CO 




£ 


cn 
C 


co 




CD 

o 








































o 

CO 












o 

o 






co 

3 




£ 


3 


s 




"E 








































as 












as 






TO 




TO 

u 


T3 
T3 


'cj 




CD 
CO 








































3 

a 












E 






"co 

c 




•D 


<D 


TO 
Ll_ 












































CD 












as 








C 






as 
_> 








































a 












CO 






o 




TO 


"Lo 

TO 


C 

g 




CD 




















































"> 

b 






CO 

o 

Cl 




o 

ID 


(J 

as 


c 

(D 

> 
c 

o 

o 

o 
o 




a) 
C 

E 
■a 
< 

o 
u 
































TO 








O 












CO 
T3 

as 
as 


ro 


LU 


C 

as 

D) 




_ro 

"to 
> 

TO 


1 

C 
O 












•o 

TO 
CD 
I 




















o 
o 


b 
as 
CO 


o 
o 


o 

o 




o3 

CO 
CD 












c 

o 
o 


"5 
u 
as 

CO 


Cl 
O 

CL 


C 
TO 

U 

■a 


A 




CO 


Q> 




CD 






























CD 


c 


CD 


CD 
















CD 


c 


"5. 


as 


o 
u 


g 

TO 

E 


o 

Q. 

b 
cj 

£ 

<D 
in 


5 

>- 




Q 










c 

CD 

E 
r 




















Q 


o 
'co 

CO 

E 
E 


a 


Q 




£ 
o 

CD 












L5 § 

.£•"5. 


.o 
'co 

CO 

E 
E 


E 

LU 


"O 

c 
as 

E 


OS 


3 

a. 




"5 

Q. 










TO 




















"3 
a 


"5 

D. 


3 

a 




CD 












|| 


< 


E 
o 




CD 




CD 










CD 




















CD 


o 


CD 


CD 














o 


(— 


£ 


c 


Q 




D 










Q 




















a 


o 


Q 


a 




LU 












Q CD 


O 


2 


as 


£* 








co 
o 




co 
q 








LO 




















CD 


•*r 


co 


CD 




CM 












CO 


■«r 




as 

c 

r- 


q 




o 


o 








o 




















O 


q 


q 


q 




q 












q 


q 






o 
as 
a> 

"5 


•* 




■^ 


o 


TT 










-^ 




















a 


f' 


•>T 


•«r 




■<r 












■<* 


■^■ - 


5 


>' 


o 




o 


O 








o 




















o 


o 


O 


o 




o 












o 


o 


o 


a. 


'"~ 


< 


'"I 


o 


•"I 


CD 


<: 


< 


< 


V 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


*T 


T 


T 


*^ 


< 


*■; 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


^ 


•■; 


< 


CO _• 


o 


Z 


o 




o 










o 




















o 


o 


O 


o 




o 












o 


o 


TO | 


O 












Z 


z 


Z 




Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 










z 




z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 






CD 










































































































































■■=■ o 


N 




































































— o 


3 
TO 


X 


> 

0. 


X 




X 










X 




















X 


X 


X 


X 




X 












X 


X 


X 


as c 


LU 


LU 




LU 




> 


> 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


LU 


LU 


■o o 


3) 


a 


Q. 




CL 




0. 


CL 


Cl 


a 


CL 


CL 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


CL 


0. 


CL 


CL 


Q. 


CL 


D. 


a. 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


a. 


'— OS 

as as 






































































ro ro 






































































CO 3 






































































c as 






































































O .C 






















T3 






























































































































o 




O 








ro 

CD 




















O 




o 


O 
















_o 






'55 c 

_ as 




_ 




_ 


CJ 
CD 


X 


CJ 
CD 








I 












_ 


_ 






CD 


= 




O 
CD 












— 


= 


"o 

CD 








> 




> 


a 


5 


> 


> 


> 


CD 

E 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


X 


X 




> 






X 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


ro <= 

1] 

5 -o 
> — 

O .CO 




































3 




Q 


Q 
















15 








<D 




CD 


3 

CL 

CD 
Q 


CD 


j>- 


OS 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CO 


0) 


CD 




as 






CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CO 




as 


CD 




cn 




09 


a 


3 
Cl 
CD 
Q 


OS 


cn 


a 


tr 


CJ) 


a 


cn 


CD 


CJ) 


a 


CJ) 


a 


cn 


^> 


CO 


_>- 


_>- 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


^> 


CO 


cn 




TO 




TO 


TO 


TO 


ro 


TO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


TO 


CO 


TO 


TO 


TO 


ro 


3 


ro 


3 


3 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


3 


CO 


ro 


o 


C 




C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


a 


c 


C 


c 


C 


C 


C 


C 


C 


c 


o_ 


c 


Cl 


a 


c 


<= 


B 


c 


c 


c 


c 


D. 


c 


c 




TO 




TO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CD 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


TO 


TO 


TO 


ro 





ro 


CD 


CD 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


as 


ro 


ro 


K 


5 




2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


D 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


Q 


2 


a 


a 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


Q 


2 


2 


Cl CO 






































































ro - 
X S 


0) 

o o 


,_ 




,_ 


c\T 

LO 
CJ) 

o 


ro 


cs? 

LO 
09 

o 


co 


ro 


ro 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


,_ 


,_ 


^. 


,_ 


CM 


CM 


T _ 


CM 


CM 


ro 


CM 


CM 


CM 


,_ 


CM 


CO 


CN 


CM 


CO 




CO 


ro 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CD 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


CO 


xr 


t 


LO 


CO 


LO 


LO 


T 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


CO 


LO 


CM 


CM 


OS 




os 


os 


as 


CJ) 


OS 


OS 


CJ) 


os 


OS 


OS 


CJ) 


os 


CJ) 


as 


os 


CJ) 


O) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CJ) 


CD 


OS 


a 


LU — 


-5 CJ 


O 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


11 

TO CT 


-° -. 




































































o » 


T 




■3- 




CD 




co 


ro 


ro 


o 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


T 


•<r 


h- 


r-- 


LO 


in 


CM 


rr 


CO 


ro 


CM 


CM 


CM 


t 


LO 


00 


eg 


CM 


-r, as 

^? x 

as co 

i as 

c c 


"5 3? 


N 




N 




r- 




i~- 


r» 


r*. 


CD 


h. 


r«- 


N 


r^ 


r- 


r^- 


r~ 


r^ 


r- 


c- 


r^ 


r- 


r-~ 


N 


r> 


r>» 


r^ 


r^ 


r^ 


h. 


r>- 


r^ 


r^ 


to 


CO 




CO 




ro 




co 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


co 


CO 


co 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


co 


ro 


CO 






































































ii 












































c 




































































o 


c 
























o 












































CO 


g 


CO 


















, 




£ £ 












































CO 


c/) 


a) 






















ro 3 












































E 


I 

E 


CJ 


















o 




co ro 
















°8 




























E 
o 
O 


1 

CD 






E 
g 












ro 




|| 
















jC 




























o 


CD 
O 

£ 
Q 

CO 

> 


CO 




0) 


o 

CD 
Cl 
CO 

c 

CT 
C 

"5 












■c 
o 




CO o 


c 

0) 

E 

r 

TO 

Q. 
0) 














3 
O 

> 

E to 
CD CD 

11 

-C TO 








_g 

o 

c 

o 




















O) 

c 
'c 
c 

CO 
0. 


t 

o 
a. 

a 

3 

CO 




c 
o 

s 

< 

u 

to 












Cl 

CO 

c 

CO 

o — 
Pi 




o as 
S.C0 

CL CD 

E fi 
cd ro 

X £ 
LU O 


a 














O LL 





























b 


o 


o 




a 


m 












cl 2 







13 



o ■ 

c Q- 

" c 

■D O 

0) = 

o ui 

E £ 

c E 

re o 

to O t- 

w o S 

re u 2 

U- OO 

OJ M ° 

Q. (A 

° " 

0) « 

> E 

OJ 0) 

££ CO 

re 

c/> c 

3 re 

re S 



















































A 


lltflrhmfTi 








1 re 
so.. 


















































Pape 6 


































c 




C 
















































= o 




= o 






















O 'o CO 




























> '^= 




> S3 














co 




































'u re 




'o re 




















*D C CO 






















































c "3 t*; 




























o c 




o c 






















re -4 -£ 

III.' 5 




























— a> 
o E 




— CD 

o E 














> 


































CO CO 




CD CO 












. 










»« | 




























d cl 




5" a. 












h 




































S .1 




3 E 























£ = is 




























CD CL 




CD CL 














) 








co S W 




























-° O 




-° O 














> 








ro co "o 




























s o 




S O 












- 




































3 ^ 




3 2 












1 










■S c o 




























O , 




O 














3 








o 2 "- 

^ g s 




























SL co 




-C CO 
















































« £ 




* £ 
















































c »- 




c «- 














X 








co o. re 




























o o 




o o 












. 










- 2-S 




























:— o 




= o 












- 


5 








CT3 ^ 

o • 5 




























CO > 

° t- 

Q. r- 




10 <" 












_ 


3 

a 








5 ~ < 

o> re ,,; 






C 






















— U5 

£ re 

~ -C 




■ -: co 
£ re 














3 








■d £ O 






re 






















ro 0- 




ro 0- 














o 








■o -o —- 






a 






















£ en 




£ co 






















£ c c 
re ro co 






in 






















CO .| 




CO £ 

£ 3 












" 


3 








CO *- *o 






< 






















— 3 
















3 








m m -— 




























ro "o 




ro t: 






















coordinati 
hance Flei 
PEAS rec 






CO 

> 

(J 

CO 
X 
LU 






















^ -D 
"D CD 
C !^ 

S CO 

ro re 
■d o 




^ -a 
£ = 

ai ■ 
£ co 
ro ro 

■D o 


o 

CO 










' 


3 

b 








co" F £ 






— 






















O CO 




O CD 


'o' 












i 








co ■ -S 






£ 






















~~ J3 




T, -c 












^ 




LU 


UJ 


N o 2 


LU 


LU 


s 




LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


_CD 




CD 


Cl 












3) 




a 


Q. 


organi 
irams t 
:h prov 
rkAlt 


O. 


a 


£ 




CL 


Q. 


a. 


CL 


a. 


a. 


a 


CL 


CL 


re S 

3.1 

ro ss 




ro s 

11 


CD 
CO 















© 


o 


O 


o 


o 


u 




O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 












. 


H 


a. 


DL 


CL 


CL 


CO 

co 




Cl 


Cl 


cT 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


a. 


Cl 


Cl 




o 










■ 


3 

3 


.o 


Q 


Q 


is {J 


Q. 


Q. 






"5. 


CL 


Q. 


s 


Q. 


Q_ 


"q. 


Q. 


a. 


— W 




— CO 


CL 












J 


o 


E 


E 


E 1 


E 


ro 




E 


E 


E 


E 


E 


E 


E 


E 


E 


•2 Q. 




5 S 
.2 cl 


E 










■ 


5 


-3 


0) 


CO 


CO 


CD 


c 




CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 




CO 












3 


S 


X 


X 


CO _ >, CO 




X 






X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


re qj- 
E o 
o £ 

c « 

_ U) 




ro a,- 
E o 
£ £ 

■£ CO 

— CO 














u 

« 
'5" 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


ie po 
pecia 
ailwa 
heriff 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


5 




LU 
< 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 


LU 
< 




CO 












E 


H 


H- 


r- 


I— 


o 




I— 


H- 


H 


r- 


h- 


y- 


t- 


t- 


(- 




"co 












3 


a. 


2 


2 


hMCM 


2 


2 


O 




2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 




a: 












£■ 






co 






CO 






















00 




CO 


CD 










J 
h 


J 












q 










































o 


■5 


"5- 


^3" f< 


5 


■? 


•q- 




■<T 


■>3- 


■q- 


T 


TT 


TT 


^r 


^3" 


^r 


■>r 




Tf 


rr 










- 


> 

\ i 


CJ> 


o 


o 


d '2 


o 


o 


o 




O 


O 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o —~ 




o -~- 


o 










[ 


CO 

re 


< 


< 


< 


< 


d 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


r-, < 

o 2 


< 


P. 2 


d 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


o 


OD 


CO 


«- Q. 


CO 


00 




Z 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


Z 




2 


Z 


2 


i: 


^ 




















































c. 


B £ 
: O 


in 


















































' 


= o 


3 

re 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


x c- 




X c 


X 












5 £> 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


> 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


> 


>" 


3 O 


co 


a. 


CL 


h- 


CL 


D. 


0. 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


a. 


Cl 


Cl 


t- 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


D o? 






















































o re 






















































o « 






















































: co 






















































3 £Z 




















































_ 






















































" 


5 c 




























_ 


_ 


_ 














_ 


_ 






. 0) 


































X 
















X 






> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


x" 


(J t= 




o 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


a> 





CO 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CO 


01 


^1 

2 -o 

> *— 

> J2 




n 


a 


o> 


en 


a 


en 


en 


en 


en 


en 


en 


CO 


en 


en 


en 


en 


CO 


en 


CO 


en 


en 


en 


en 


en 


en 




TO 


ro 


re 


CD 


ro 


ro 


ro 


co 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


C 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


re 


c 




ta 


ro 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


P 


^ 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2 


5 


2 


5 


2 


2 


5 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


- c 




















































—^ 


5 o 


« 


CNI 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


,_ 


,_ 


^ 


,_ 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


CM 


ro 


,_ 


T_ 


^ 


CM 


CM 


CO 


s 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 


CM 


CM 


CO 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


^ 2 


co 


co 


a> 


O) 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


o> 


CO 


O) 


CO 


CO 


CD 


o> 


CD 


2i 


J Cl 


-5 O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


O 


ccC 


si 

D C 


■° m 




















































o • 


N 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


■q- 


T 


-* 


^r 


m 


uo 


un 


CD 


CM 


CO 


T 


■T 


■53- 


cn 


LO 


CD 


f^ 


!1 2 


~> 13 


r- 


IV 


r- 


N 


|v 


N- 


r— 


r^ 


r- 


r-- 


r-- 


r^ 


r- 


r- 


r^ 


r-~ 


|v 


!-- 


|v 


r-- 


1^ 


r^ 


r^ 


r- 


3 g 

: c 


<o 


co 


ro 


o 


m 


ro 


co 


co 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


co 


ro 


CO 


ro 


co 


CO 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


S3 






















































1^ *iTj 






















































3 •£ 






















































'I 






















































3 






















































o re 




















































_ 


u 




















































* 


5 o 


c 


































en 


















3 03 
3.175 


■ 


































6 
















" 


1 CO 


E 


































5 


















E -c 


r 




















































^ re 


re 




















































c ^ 


Q. 


































s 
















i 


J O 


a> 


































r> 




















a 


































Cl 





















14 



• 

£ c 

o JS 

c &■ 

" c 

■o o 

03 •- 

O tfl 

E i 

(/) Q. 

c E 

re o 

n o S 

y «- » 

03 t» ° 

CL (A 

CO re 

> E 

ry CO 

re 

w c 

3 re 



co 











































































n.i_ 


UCIV— LillS^J-ll- J- 
















































































Page 7 oi 
















































































t~- 
















































































a> 


















































































c 




































































































































































ui 


















































































03 


















































































</> 


















































































CD 


















































































C 




































































































































































c 


















































































CD 




































































































































































ro 


















































































a. 


















































































c 


















































































■o 


















































































CD 


















































































C 


















































































ro 




































































































































































c 


















































































o 






































cr 












































o 






































ro 












































en 






































CO 

a: 












































CO 

3 






































< 












































ro 






































CD 












































X 






































> 












































c 






































3 

CJ 












































o 






































S 












































3 






































X 












































o 






































LU 












































a. 






































~*. 












































c 






































£r< 












































0) 






































re 












































O) 




0) 


































"S 










■D 


































c 
ro 






































u 

CD 






o 


O 


ro 

CD 


































c 




p 


































CO 






o 


"cj 


I 


































D 




-O 








































CD 


CD 




































CD 




O 


































ro 










c 


































D 




"I 

o 


































c 

CD 

■a 






a 




CD 

E 

r 


































C 
CD 

E 




a 








































"3 


"5 


ro 


































E 
o 




o" 


































c 






CD- 


a 


a 




































































o 






CD 


CD 


CD 




































ct 


































U 






a 


Q 


a 


































CD 

CD 

C 




















































































& 


























CO 








CO 






to 


CD 


in 






























































q 








q 






q 


q 


q 






































o 

» 
re 


























"? 








t' 






f' 


■"S- 


« 


































> 




























o 








o 






o 


o 


o 


































X 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


*■; 


< 




< 


*■; 


< 


< 


r ~ 


•^ 


T 


< 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


03 -J 




























o 








o 






o 


o 


o 


































ro | 




o 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 




Z 




z 




Z 


Z 








Z 




z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


































































































































































= o 




M 














































































= o 




3 

re 


























X 








X 






X 


X 


X 


































cd cr 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


> 




> 


LU 


> 


> 


LU 


LU 


LU 


> 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


□ o 




S3 


Q- 


CL 


CL 


a. 


CL 


0. 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


0- 


CL 


CL 


CL 




CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


Cl 




CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


Cl 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 


CD | 

ro ro 


































































































































































to w 


















































































C CD 


















































































O .C 
















































X3 


















































































re 


































(0 c 












































O 


_o 


CD 


































8-i 

_ <D 

ro «= 


























— 


— 
















o 


O 


I 




























_ 










X 


X 


X 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


X 


> 




> 


> 


> 


> 


s 


CD 


C 


> 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


X 


X 






cd 


a> 


cd 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 




CD 


CD 





CD 


D 


Q 


CD 

E 


CD 




CD 


CD 


CD 





CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


11 
!2 -CJ 

> — 

O W3 






CD 


CD 


CD 


a 


a 


cn 


cn 


a 


a 


a> 


cn 


cn 


cn 


a 




cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


>- 


_>^ 


c 


cn 




cr 


cn 


cn 


cn 


CJ] 


cn 


cr 


CD 


cn 


cn 


cr 


cn 


cn 


CD 






n 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


ro 


re 




re 


re 


ro 


ro 


3 


3 


ro 


re 




ro 


ro 


re 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 




© 


c 


c 


C 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 




C 


c 


c 


c 


CL 


a. 


CL 


C 




c 


E 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


re 


CC 






re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


re 


CO 


re 


re 


ro 


ro 


re 




ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CD 


CD 


CD 


re 




re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


re 


ro 


re 




i- 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


5 


2 


2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 




5 


5 


2 


5 


a 


Q 


Q 


5 




2 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


5 


5 


5 


5 


2 


2 


CL (/] 
i-i C 


















































































ro •■= 
< o 




a 
o P 


_ 


,- 


co 


CM 


CM 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


,_ 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CM 




CM 


CM 


,- 


r- 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CN 




rM 


rM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


ro 


ro 


,- 


,_ 


,_ 


'CM 


to 


ro 




rr 


^T 


-3- 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 


rM 




CM 


CM 


CO 


ro 


un 


un 


CO 


CM 




CM 


rM 


rM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 




cd 


CD 


CD 


CD 


0) 


cn 


O) 


CO 


CD 


a> 


en 


en 


CD 


a 




cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


CD 


cn 


cn 


cn 




cn 


cn 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


cn 


CD 


cn 


cn 


CD 


CD 


cn 


U Q. 




-> o 


O 


O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 




O 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


O 


o 


ro t 




■° « 
















































































eo 


l»» 


N- 


o 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


t 


in 


LO 


to 


rM 




CM 


cm 


t 


■«r 


CO 


CO 


o 


CM 




CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


m 


CO 


< 


-T 


*r 


in 


CO 


CO 


s >< 

CD cd 




""» 12 


l>» 


r»- 


CO 


l~~- 


N 


I*. 


N- 


r^ 


r- 


s. 


f~ 


r^ 


I*- 


N 




f^ 


r- 


1*- 




r» 


r-- 


ao 


N 




r-^ 


r- 


r- 


C~- 


r^ 


N 


r~~ 


(«. 


r~ 


N 


r^ 


r- 


r- 


r~~ 




co 


ro 


ro 


n 


CO 


m 


CO 


ro 


CO 


co 


ro 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 




CO 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 




ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


m 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 
















































































c c 




















































































































































































































































2^ 


















































U 
































ro "5 


















































E 
o 
c 
































co ro 












to 






















W 














































II 




c 

Q 

E 








a> 
o 

o 

to 




















>. 
U 

B 


c 
o 

ro 
o 

"c 
















o 


LU 

■ 
BO 


c 

CD 

E 
a 






























to o 

O 03 

aco 

Q. 03 

E fi 




c 

re 

Q. 








c 

re 
E 




















a 

■ 


1 

E 
















B 
■ 


o 

CD 
> 






























cd ro 
x ^ 
U O 




Q> 








=> 




















E 


o 
















=i 


CD 


































a 








X 




















LU 


O 
















m 


a 



































15 



CO •= 

S ro 

E g 

(fl Q. 

c E 



< 


™ 




03 


TO 


U 


O 


x- 


0) 


co 


a 


10 


CO 


re 


a 


U 






* 


c: 


■ 


CO 


> 


E 


01 


01 


K 


u 



































































Attachment 








































































Page 1 






























re 


CO 

ro 






































































JZ 


.c 








































co 






























c 


c 






































































o 


o 














































































































































a 


CL 






































































E 


E 







































X 
































a> 


CO 






































K 
































X 








































































LU 


LU 






































K 

a 
































» § 


* i 




































































£" co 


£< co 






































r 
































o co 


o <" 






































c 
































cn c 

s | 

if c3 


en c: 
- E 

25 







































B 

C 

c 
































E u 


E o 






































T 
a 
































S e 


x'E 






































c 
fl 
































01 0> 


CD CD 




































































CD W 


CD W 






































c 
































> 


__ > 






































c 
E 
































10 


lo 






































u 
































O CD 


O CD 






































a 
































£ .C 


^ ^ 






































































cn •" 


CO — 






































B 
































i_ >. 


1_ >. 




































































O -Q 


o .o 














































































































































to -o 


O "D 






































C 
































CD CD 


CO CO 






































c 
































.b: > 


.^ > 






































































Q o 


a s 






































c? 

C 
C 
































^ CL 


>. CL 




































































■g Q. 


■g CL 




































































2 ro 


2 CD 






































e 
































CL . 


Cl . 






































































s 


SJ 








































c 


i 






























TO 


. T! 






































c 




a 




























— B 


■L £ 

























































O 

to 

00 














Q. U5 

E ? 


Q. "to 

E § 

CD E 






































JZ 

c 
t 






o 




























CD £ 






































•c 




-5 
il 
O 














Q 
>- 














c/> c 

re a) 

— CD 


CD go 
*- Q) 








































E 




0) 

"5" 














"3 

Q. 
CD 














,9 o 


5f 






































£ 

c 




til 














D 














O c 


O c 






































a 




c? 














CD 

o 














S" 
p 


cd" 

o 






































a 

-C 




o 
co 
© 














o 














o 


o 






































> 
a 




re 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


T ~ 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


si 5 


$ 5 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


<& 
















o 






















































? 




O 


2 


z 


2 


z 


Z 


Z 




Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


z ^ 


z c 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


E 






































































a 


=3 
O 


(/> 




































































c 




o 


zj 














X 














X 

at 


■5, LU 






































£- 


re 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


SE 


o 


55 


a. 


CL 


0. 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


0. 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


a. 


Cl 


Cl 


CL 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


Cl 


°* 


cn 

00 






































































cc 


CD 






































































c/ 


u 






































































c 


09 






































































1 


£ 














































































































































c? 


_c 
















O 






















































c 


















u 
































— 




















— 




73 
01 




X 












ao 


































X 
























X 


X 


X 


X 


> 




> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


X 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


X 


X 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


5 


£ 




CD 


co 


CO 


a> 


a> 


CO 




CD 


CD 


0} 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CD 


0) 


CD 


CD 


Q) 


CD 


00 


CD 


CD 


00 


ao 


00 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


Q) 


cl 


1 




a 


a 


a 


CO 


a 


U 


>- 


CO") 


cn 


Cn 


CO 


cn 


cn 


cn 


CO 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


cn 


co 


cn 


CO 


cn 


co- 


CO 


CT 


a 


cr 


co- 


cn 


co- 


a- 


CDC 




ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


3 


ro 


ro 


re 


re 


ro 


CD 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CD 


CO 


CO 


ro 


ro 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 


co 


co 


co 


CD 




_» 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


Cl 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


c 




(0 




ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


ro 


CD 


re 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


CD 


CD 


ro 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CO 


co 


ro 






P 


2 


S 


^ 


2 


^ 


^ 


D 


^ 


2 


2 


5 


2 


^ 


2 


S 


5 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


S 


2 


2 


2 


2 


^ 


. CO 

c 






































































c 


o 


0) 

° R 


F3 


F3 


ro 


m 


P3 


CO 


CM 


CM 


,_ 


,_ 


CM 


CO 


,- 


CO 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


»_ 


,- 


^ 


CM 


CO 


t- 


,- 


CM 


ro 


ro 


CO 


^ 


,_ 


CM 


'55 


m 


t 


T 




TT 


CM 


cn 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CM 


CM 


CO 


•*r 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


■a 


TJ" 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 




o 


a 


09 


03 


co 


0) 


09 


09 


co 


09 


CO 


ai 


oo 


09 


CO 


CO 


09 


COO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ao 


CO 


O) 


oo 


a> 


CO 


CO 


ao 


ao 


COO 


ao 


CO 


Ol 




Cl 


-> o 


a 


o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




1 


■° - 





































































CI 


o © 


CO 


o 


o 






CO 


CO 


CM 


rr 


■*r 


CM 


CO 


■<T 




CM 


CM 


CM 


ro 


CO 


rr 


^r 


•q- 


in 


CD 


r- 


N. 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


«tf 


"* 


in 


s 


09 


-> ' 


i«. 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


r- 


h- 


r- 


n- 


r— 


f- 


r» 


r~ 


CO 


f^ 


r^ 


r-~ 


r- 


K 


K 


r^- 


r^ 


r- 


h^ 


r>- 


p>- 


r-~ 


N. 


K 


N. 


h~ 


r~ 


r- 


X 


CO 


C*J 


co 


CO 


CO 


ro 


co 


ro 


co 


co 


ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 


co 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 




CD 




































































c 


cn 

c 






































































n 


1 






































































3 






































































a 


o 

JC 






































































n 


3 






































































u 


CD 
























E 
































I/O 














c 


c 
























































CD 














_c 


o 
























"ro 
































o 


















E 

0) 

E 
r 

re 












C 

CO 

E 

cz 
O 










09 

X 
>. 

E 1 








"ro 

CD 

I 
U 
























C) 

o 

CO 

ao 
K 

c 
ro 














5 

c 
c 

c 
E 
a 

> 


o 

0) 
CO 

! 


a. 












> 




CD 












2 
























E 














LL 


o 


a> 












c 










o a) 








D 






















3 


















Q 




1 






LU 




iZ 






o z 








Cl 




















1 


I 



















16 



•a o 

Q) — 

O w 

E g 

I/) Q. 



c 


F 




ra 


o 




w 


u 










in 


c 




in 


o 




< 
ra 


re 
o 


1T5 

O 


o 

01 


^z 


O 


in 


O 


Q. 


in 




CO 


ra 







U 




% 


c 




0) 


0) 




> 


E 




01 


0} 




Q. 


ra 































































a:^ 


^c 


nrntrTiT; 


11 


































































Pa 


26 


9 oj 












































c 






d 






c 


























































~ o 






o 






c 




































■a 

c 










CO 

c 


O („ 
c M 










> cS 

o ra 




> 
u 


rc 




> 


TO 














C30 




























































































C c 










TO ffl 










o c 




O 


c 




o 


C 




































CO 


O CD 










•S o 










— CO 






c 






B 




































c 


c -= 








TO 
CL 


? c 










o E 




T5 


E 




o 


E 










CO 


























-£. 


9 3 








-o 


i-i 










CD CD 




CD 


CD 




CD 


CD 










JZ 


























TO 


in Tj 








c 










2" cl 




s 


a 




JZ 


CL 










1— 


























CL 
CD 
JZ 


'to c 

0) TO 

"o :~ 








3 
O 
O) 
CD 


3 1 

c ■□ 

CO CO 

E cl 

CO CO 




en 

CD 






3 J 

CO Q_ 




3 
CO 

CD 


E 

CL. 




3 
CO 

CO 


E 

CL 










en 

CD 

m 


























~ 


CO c 










3 






■° o 




-O 


o 




JZ 


O 










CD 


























a 


.£ o 










■o 






2 O 




2 


o 




32 


o 










JZ 


























c 
C 


-a ••= 
c in 








c 
3 


etc? 




0) 

u 






°1 




3 

O 


2 




3 

o 


2 










C 

o 


























CD O 












o 






JZ co 




JZ 


CD 




JZ 


CD 










TO 

Q. 


























TO 


CL CL 








c 

TO 


_ -jj 




a 






en £ 




CO 


JZ 




in 


JZ 


































'E 

TO 

en 
o 

CD 


CO £ 

1 i2 

en c 

CD CD 








O 

c 

.9 


c co 

CO 

■— c 

"jQ CO 




CD 
CJ 

c. 

CD 
CO 






C wt 

o o 
it; o 
en > 

CL ^ 




C 
O 

CO 

o 

ZL 


"5 

c 

g 

r- 




c 
o 

'co 

o 

Cl 


O 

o 

$ 










TJ 
CD 
C 
TO 




























o E 








3 












w S 




CO 


0) 




en 


CD 




































CO S 

■° 3 














> 






•— en 






CO 






CO 










c 












c 














_rc 








c 


TO ~ 

CO c 
*^- CO 




"3 

o 




c 


£ ra 


c 


'jz 


ro 

JZ 




c 


ro 

JZ 










o 
o 












CD 














^E 


Sr o- 








o 


CO E 
O) CO 

c > 






to 


co CL 


TO 


ra 


LO- 




ro 


CL 










CO 












0! 














cd 


TO m 

E i 








o 

CO 




u 

CD 




"co 
'co 


£ a 
en .S 


to 
'co 


JZ 
CO 


CO 

c 




JZ 
CO 


en 
C 










CO 

3 












CO 

< 














c 


c o 
•2 3 








en 


a. 2 

o g- 




5 




CO 

< 


S 3 

ro n 


CO 

< 


_CD 
TO 


3 




s 


3 

"D 










ro 












O 
> 














8 

E 


en .5 

o > 
a. 2 








c 


a E 
> — 




CO 

CD 




CD 

> 


.y -o 

T3 (D 


CD 

> 


u 

TO 


■a 

CD 




o 

T3 


TJ 
CD 










c 












"5 














CD 








CO 


CO CO 




£ 




3 


C i= 


3 


C 


CLZ 




c 


ccr 










o 












CJ 
CO 
X 














a 

E 


£ -o 

j: c 








"•6 


"° 3 
TO S 

cl ts 

CO TO 
CO "c 

O •- 

n 

— o 




c 
o 




o 

CD 
X 


ro ro 


O 

CD 


ro 


'co 

CO 

ro 


_ 


_co 
"to 


CO 

ro 










CO 

C 








o 

cd 




LU 














-a 


H CO 








o 




'io 




LU 


•o o 


LU 


"O 


u 


O 
CD 


TO 


u 










CL 






o 


'o 
a 






& 

3 
<3 














c 

TO 

a 

o 

CD 

> 

CD 

■a 


11 

>1 






TO 
1 


CD 
CO 

c 




o 

Cl 

in 

JC. 




TO 


O (B 
<D _ 

•° '5 

ro > 


TO 


o 

CD 
JZ 

_ro 


CD 

JD 


g 

O 

CD 


o 

CD 

JZ 

ro 


CD 

JZ 






13 




c 

CD 

en 
c 
ro 






K 


CD 




u 

co 
oo 




o 
o 






o 
"5 




°2S 

o c c 




o 
o 


CD 

co 


o 
o. 

CO 

CO 


o 
a 


en 

E 

'5 

CT 
CD 

CD 

•c 




CJ 

CD 

co 


11 


ij 
CD 
CO 


'ro 
> 
ro 


C 

O 


CD 
>> 

_9 


I 

ro 


c 
o 


O 

"o 


o 

"o 


TO 
CD 
I 




JZ 

CJ 
TJ 






-Q 
O 
-J 

u 

4> 


CI 

E 
a> 

to 
cd 




5 
c 

co 
5 




co 

l5 
>■ 

3 






co 

Q 
>. 
3 




o 

CO 

O 

CD 


to — — 

ss ro to 

O T5 "O 

.2 3 
t in m 

n c c 
i- o o 
H cj o 




CD 

Q 
>> 

3 


c 
o 
en 

CO 

E 

E 


CO 

c 
o 


fii 


CD 

5 

"5 




c 

CD 

5 


S S 

.2 CL 
ro gC 

E 2 


3 

c 

CD 

2 


c 
o 

ro 
E 


o 

Cl 

cd" 
o 


CL 

E 

CD 
TO- 
LL 1 


c 
_o 

"ro 
E 


CO 

o 

Cl 

a>" 
u 


CD 

Q 
2j. 

3 


CD 
Q 

3 


C 

CD 

E 

■c 

TO 




CD 

TO 

c 

CD 

E 
E 






'o" 






c 




a 






Q. 




'o 




a 


CO 




a 


TO 




c 


o c: 


c 


o 


£ 




o 


£ 


Cl 


CL 


Q. 




p 






CO 




o 




co 






CO 






CD 


o 


o 


2 TO ® 


CD 


-C 




o 


*^ CD 


o 




CD 

no 


CD 




CD 
M 


CD 


CD 


CD 








rt 


cr 




o 




a 






a 




CL 




o 


tj 


CL 


ra t. £ 


a 


o 




o 


= $ 


O 


c 


DC 


c 


a 


Q 


D 




CD 






& 






CO 




CO 






co 




oo 






CO 


t 


CO 




CD 






co 


co 


co 


CM 






CO 




CD 


CD 


in 




CD 
JZ 
r- 










o 




q 






q 




*— 






o 


q 


T- 




o 






q 


▼^ 


q 


V" 






■*— 




O 


O 


q 










o 

O) 

o 
13 






^r 




•* 






T 




<<r 


o 

0) 

'g 




■* 


^r 


TT 


■g 


t' 






■* 


■* 


■<r 


■« 






■a 




TT 


tT 


xr 




> 










O 




o 






O 




O 




o 


o 


o 


CO 


o 






o 


° :? 


o 


O 






o 




O 


o 


o 




CL 






C\l 


< 


o 


< 


o 


< 


< 


co 


< 


o 


< 


d> 


d 


d 


'o 


d 


< 




d 


o z 


d 


CD 


< 

Z 


CM 


CZO 


< 

2 


czi 


CZO 


czi 


< 


CO 

ro 
T3 
CD 

C 

CD 


c 




o 


U 


Z 




2 




Z 


z 




Z 




a. 


z 








Cl 




z 






t™ 




CJ 










z 


E 

3 
O 
CJ 




in 

13 


































































X 




X 




X 






X 




X 






X 


X 


X 




X 






X 


x C 

jfj £ 


X 


X 


> 

LX 


X 


X 


> 

LX 


X 


X 


X 




CL- 




LU 


> 


LU 


> 


LU 


> 


> 


LU 


> 


LU 




> 


LU 


LU 


LU 




LU 


> 




LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


> 


T3 


O 




co 


h- 


a. 


a 


0. 


CL 


CL 


Q. 


DL 


a. 


(- 




a 


Cl 


CL 


CL 




Cl 


Cl 




CL 


a 


r- 


r- 


h- 


CL 


CL 


Cl 


DL 


CD 

ro 

CO 

c 


co 

2 

TO 
U 

CD 
































































_ 
















> 






> 










— 








s 




■o 

TO 


















= 


= 


13 




o 


JZ 










































CD 


























CO 


c 














o 






o 










o 








o 




X 


















O 


_o 


CD 




o 
















o 




_ 


o 










u 








o 




— 
















"5 


CJ 


X 




Cl 


TO 
CD 
Lf= 






X 


> 


> 


X 


co 


> 


> 


CO 


> 


> 




> 


Q) 


> 


X 




CD 


X 


c 

CD 


> 


> 


> 


> 




> 


X 




CD 


8 


C 


> 


"to 














Q 






Q 










Cj 








c5 




E 
r 

TO 

Cl 
CD 

D 


















5 


Q 


CD 

E 




c 


C 
CD 
TO 






co 


co 


CO 


co 




CO 


CO 




CO 


CD 




CO 




CO 


CD 






CD 


CO 


CD 


CD 


B 




CD 


CD 








CD 


o 






en 


en 


en 


en 


ir 


co 


en 


_>>. 


en 


en 




CO 


>^ 


CO 


en 




_>N 


CD 


en 


en 


en 


en 




en 


CZO 




>- 


_>> 


■c 


CT 


'co 






TO 


TO 


TO 


TO 


3 


TO 


TO 


3 


TO 


TO 




TO 


3 


TO 


TO 




"5 


TO 


TO 


ro 


ro 


ro 




ro 


ro 




3 


3 


TO 


ro 


> 

p 




j? 


c 


C 


C 


c 


Q. 


c 


c 


a. 


C 


C 




C 


CL 


C 


c 




CL 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 




c 


c 




CL 


Cl 


CL 


c 


CO 






TO 


TO 


TO 


TO 


CO 


TO 


TO 


CO 


TO 


TO 




TO 


CD 


TO 


TO 




CD 


TO 


TO 


ro 


ro 


ro 




ro 


ro 




CD 


CD 


CO 


ro 








P 


2 


2 


2 


2 


Q 


2 


2 


Q 


2 


2 




2 


Q 


2 


5 




D 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 




2 


2 




Q 


Q 


Q 


2 


TO 

c 
ro 

X 


in 

c 

o 










































_ 




























a 
o o 


CO 


CM 


CM 


m 


in 


CM 


CM 


in 


CM 


CM 




C\J 


CM 


CM 


CO 




CN 


,_ 


CM 
CO 
OO 

o 


CM 


CM 


CN 


CO 




r^ 


CO 




ro 


ro 


CO 


CM 


'in 




CO 


CM 


CM 


CO 


in 


CN 


CO 


in 


CM 


CM 




CM 


in 


CM 


CO 




in 


^r 


CO 


CM 


CN 


CN 




CM 


CO 




in 


in 


CD 


CM 


o 




CJ) 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


130 


CO 


COO 




01 


CO 


CO 


CJ) 




en 


CD 


CO 


00 


OO 


CO 




a 


CO 




CO 


en 


CO 


IZTi 


LU 


CL 




—> u 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


O 


O 




o 


o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 




o 


o 




a 


o 


o 


o 


CL 
■ 
TO 


"5. 
E 




■° «, 


































































o » 


co 


CM 


CM 


CO 




CM 


in 


a 


CM 


CM 




CM 


xr 


CM 


CO 




CO 


o- 




en 


CM 


CM 


ro 




CO 


CO 




r~- 


r~ 




CM 


TO 
CD 
Cf= 

C 


CD 




"> u 


N 




r~- 


r- 


ao 


r-- 


r~ 


CO 


l». 


r«- 




r~~ 


t»- 


f- 


0- 




r- 






0- 




N 


r-- 




0~ 


I*. 




r- 


o^ 


CO 


N 


X 




co 


ro 


m 


co 


ro 


ro 


CO 


ro 


CO 


CO 


co 




CO 


CO 


co 


CO 




co 


co 




ro 


CO 


CO 


co 




CO 


ro 




ro 


ro 


CO 


CO 


CD 


























,— 


, ~ 


*™ 


r ~ 


































en 
c 




































































CD 
TO 


B 














































O 


































































"c 




















o 


CD 


o 

JZ 




































































ro 


3 
































it 

TO 

CL 














en 

c 
o 




















a 

o 


IO 

C 
o 


TO 
C 
O 








c 


8 












TO 










■o 














ra 
o 




















u 


CO 


u 








to 






CO 






H 










c 
































V 


o 


CD 




c 

0) 

E 




3 

O 

O 

a 


C 
03 

CO 

Q 






CO 

5 






"O 

c 

CO 










CO 

C 

o 






E 








'c 

3 

E 

c en 




















CO 

t 

E 


Q.C0 

Cl cd 

E r 




r 

re 




c 


_o 






o 






c 










TO 

E 






u 






IE 


8 -2 




















5 

CO 


CD 

X 


TO 

JZ 




a. 




CO 


o 


r 




5 






■£ 










Q 






■CO 






B 


1 c: 




















ro 

E 


LU 


CJ 




■ 




3 


3 


o 




3 






TO 










a> 






s 






_c 


a> cd 


























o 




— > 


Q_ 


a 




D. 






CL 










CL 






CL 






CO 


h- CO 




















i- 









17 



~ c 
o « 



E g 

in q. 

c E 

« o 

w O t- 



< 


TO 
U 


5 

o 


o 


^_ 


05 


in 


o 


a. 


l/> 




C/> 


TO 




o 


O 




5J 


c 




o> 


■ 




> 


E 








<o 



rage 10 of 10 



^ 




c 

CD 


P? 


T3 


O 




a 




a> 


IB 


ro 



'5 c 

8L5 

_ a> 

ra <E 

.il 
> — 

P .2 

Q. en 
ij 

co .t; 

X g 

lu a. 

c c 

SI 



£ — 

CO 3 
U) CO 



Cl m 

E £ 

a) ro 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 01-1939 

Department: 

Item: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution approving the Japan Center Garage Public 
Parking Lease by and between the City and County of 
San Francisco (through the DPT) as lessor and the City of 
San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation as 
lessee. This resolution would authorize the DPT to enter 
into a 15-year lease, with one 15-year option, without the 
use of competitive bidding, with the existing lessee, the 
Japan Center Garage Corporation, a non-profit 
corporation, as lessee, to manage the City-owned Japan 
Center Garage parking facilities located at 1610 Geary 
Boulevard. 



Location: 1610 Geary Boulevard between Fillmore and Laguna 

Purpose of Lease: Management of Japan Center Parking Garage Facilities 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



No. ofSq. Ft.: 



Annual Rent and Net 
Parking Revenues 
Payable By JCGC to 
the City's Off-Street 
Parking Fund: 



City and County of San Francisco 

City of San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation 
(JCGC), a nonprofit corporation 

The Japan Center Parking Garage facilities (Garage) 
contains 352,100 square feet and accommodates 920 
vehicles. 



$1.00 over the fifteen-year term of the lease; plus, 75 
percent of net revenues, consisting of estimated gross 
revenues of $2,830,000 less Parking Taxes at 20 percent 
or $566,000 of gross revenues 1 , less operating expenses of 
an estimated $1,325,000, resulting in estimated net 
revenues to the City of $704,250 annually based on 
existing parking rates. 



1 Parking Taxes are 25 percent of Parking Fees and are included in posted rates, so when calculating 
Parking Taxes from Gross Revenues they equal 20 percent of Gross Revenues. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Utilities and 
Janitorial Services 
Payable by Lessee 
from Parking 
Revenues: 



Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Description: 



All costs for utilities and janitorial services would be 
approved annually by the Controller and the DPT as part 
of their approval of all operating costs under the existing 
and proposed lease and are the responsibility of the 
Lessee. 

The lease term is fifteen years, commencing on December 
1, 2001 or upon approval of the Board of Supervisors and 
expiring on December 1, 2016. The City can terminate the 
lease without cause at any time, upon 90 days notice. 

One option to extend the lease for an additional fifteen 
years. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department 
of Parking and Traffic to enter into a lease, without using 
a competitive bid process, with JCGC, a nonprofit 
corporation, to manage the Japan Center Garage facilities 
located at 1660 Geary Boulevard. According to Section 
17.11 of the Administrative Code, the Parking and Traffic 
Commission can lease a parking facility, without a 
competitive process, to a nonprofit corporation for the 
purpose of facilitating the financing of a parking facility, 
as authorized and approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

The Garage is comprised of two parking structures that 
accommodate a total of 920 vehicles. According to Mr. 
Ronald Szeto of the Department of Parking and Traffic, 
the Garage is owned by the City and currently leased by 
the City to the JCGC. 

In 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved: (a) the 
dissolution of the City of the San Francisco Western 
Addition Parking Corporation (WAPC), a non-profit 
corporation, which was the prior Garage lessee; (b) the 
transfer of the remaining assets and liabilities of WAPC 
to JCGC, a non-profit corporation; (c) a five year lease 
commencing on December 1, 1999 and expiring on 
November 30, 2004, with the JCGC as lessee for the 
Japan Center Garage (see Comment No. 1); and (d) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



acceptance of a gift to the City of $550,000 from WAPC for 
the renovation of the Peace Plaza at the Japanese 
Cultural Trade Center. According to Mr. Szeto, the use of 
a non-profit corporation facilitates lease revenue 
financing at minimal risk to the City. 

Under the current lease with JCGC, which has been in 
effect since December 1, 1999, the Japan Center Garage 
Corporation allocates 85 percent of the Garage's net 
revenues, to the City's Off-Street Parking Fund. Under 
the proposed new lease, 75 percent, instead of 85 percent 
of net revenues, would be allocated to the Off-Street 
Parking Fund. According to Mr. Szeto, this percentage 
reduction would result in reduced parking revenues of an 
estimated $103,250 annually to be allocated to the Off- 
Street Parking Fund. Mr. Szeto states that the net 
revenue for FY 2000-2001 for the City will be 
approximately $807,500 at the 85 percent rate while 
under the proposed lease, the anticipated net revenue of 
allocating 75 percent of the Garage's net income to the 
Off-Street Parking Fund will be approximately $704,250 
annually, or $103,250 less, as shown in Attachment I 
provided by the DPT. 

Under the existing lease, 15 percent of net revenues are 
transferred to a capital account for the Garage. Under 
the proposed lease, the Japan Center Parking Corporation 
will transfer 25 percent of net revenues to this capital 
account to be used for Garage capital improvements. This 
percentage allocation for capital improvements would be 
derived from the corresponding reduced allocation to the 
Off-Street Parking Fund. According to Mr. Szeto, the 
increased contribution to the capital account, from 15 
percent of net revenues to 25 percent of net revenues, has 
been proposed because under the current lease, the Japan 
Center Garage has been insufficiently funded for capital 
projects. Mr. Szeto further reports that at the time of the 
dissolution of WAPC and formation of JCGC, WAPC 
transferred $589,335 to JCGC for the capital account. In 
Attachment III, provided by DPT, Mr. Szeto provides 
further details on the need for increased capital funds of 
JCGC. Under the existing lease, the capital fund account 
can have an accumulated balance of up to a maximum of 
$1 million. Under the proposed lease, the capital fund 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



account can have an accumulated balance of up to a 
maximum of $2 million. If the capital fund at any time 
exceeds the current maximum of $1 million or the 
proposed maximum of $2 million, such excess funds must 
be transferred to the City's Off-Street Parking Fund. The 
balance of the capital fund account is currently $296,322, 
according to Mr. Szeto. 

Mr. Szeto reports that under the current and proposed 
lease terms, JCGC must obtain Parking and Traffic 
Commission authorization before expending any funds 
from the capital account. Under the terms of the 
proposed lease, the Controller and the Parking and 
Traffic Commission will continue to have review and 
approval authority for the annual budget of the Garage, 
including expenditures from the capital account. 

According to Mr. Szeto, the Japan Center Garage 
Corporation would continue to contract for management 
of the Garage with a parking operator to be selected 
under a Bid/Request for Proposals (RFP) process in 
accordance with the lease agreement. Presently, the 
garage operator is Ampco System Parking. JCGC must 
employ a professional parking operator with a staff 
experienced in the management and operation of public 
parking facilities. The selection of the parking operator is 
subject to approval by both the Parking and Traffic 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors in accordance 
with Section 17.11 of the Administrative Code. The 
current agreement with Ampco System Parking, which 
was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, is 
now on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Szeto reports that 
the JCGC is currently conducting a competitive bid/RFP 
process for a new parking operator agreement which will 
be subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

Mr. Szeto further reports that under the terms of the 
lease, Japan Center Garage Corporation would provide 
the Japantown Task Force, a non-profit corporation, with 
$50,000 annually for five years, from January 1, 2002 
through December 31, 2007, from garage parking 
revenues to be expended for marketing for Japantown and 
also to create a long-term conceptual plan for community 
businesses. Attachment II, provided by DPT, describes 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



how the Japantown Planning, Preservation and 
Development Task Force was established and provides a 
list of the 49 former members of the Japantown Planning, 
Preservation and Development Task Force. Mr. Szeto 
advises that the Japantown Planning, Preservation and 
Development Task Force dissolved upon the 
establishment of the Japantown Task Force, whose 15 
members are also listed in Attachment II. 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Szeto reports that, previously, the Board of 
Supervisors requested that DPT monitor and evaluate the 
JCGC during the current lease period and make 
recommendations to terminate or extend the use of the 
not-for-profit parking corporation for the Garage. Mr. 
Szeto further reports that DPT has found JCGC to be 
successful mits management of the Garage. According to 
Mr. Szeto, for this reason the DPT has now proposed a 
new lease of 15 years with JCGC even though the existing 
lease with JCGC does not expire until November 30, 
2004. 



Recommendations: 



2. As stated above, the proposed lease term is fifteen 
years, retroactive from December 1, 2001 to November 1, 
2016, with one option to extend the lease for an additional 
fifteen years. As previously noted, the DPT already has 
an . existing lease with the Japan Center Garage 
Corporation and therefore there is no need to begin the 
proposed lease on December 1, which would require 
retroactivity. 

1. Amend the proposed lease to commence January 1, 
2002, instead of December 1, 2001, as discussed in 
Comment No. 2 above. 



2. Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy decision for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Attachment I 



CO 

m 
< 
< 

o 

en 
hi 



LU 

o 

z 
< 

Q. 
< 









o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 




o 








o 


o 


o 


o 


LO 


o 


LO 




LO 








o 


o 


o 


o 


N- 


LO 


CN 




CM 


CM 




o 


CD 


W 


en 


"3" 


00 


■>3- 




■* 


O 




(J 

CD 


CO 


CD 


CM 


CO 


CO 


T — 


o 




o 


O 




CO 


LO 


CO 


CT> 


CM 


^ 


r»- 


o 


tv. 


CM 




a! 


CM* 








* 

* 
* 
















o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


CM 


o 




o 






■D 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


LO 


o 




o 




■ — 


Q) 


o 


o 


o 


O 


LO 


CO 


LO 




LO 


T— 


"ro 


ro 


o 


o 


o 


O 


CM 


o 


r>- 




t-^ 


o 


3 


Q. 


io 


LD 


LO 


to 


-* 


r- 


o 




o 


o 




'(_) 


I s - 


CD 


CM 


a> 




CO 


00 


o 


CO 


CNI 


o 

< 


< 


CN 








* 
* 
















CO 


f~- 


CO 


CO 


CM 


oo 


T _ 




T _ 








T — 


O 


CD 


T— 


CO 


CO 


00 




oo 








CN 


■*r 


LO 


CN 


T— 


o 


o 




o 


O 




"ro 


r--" 


o" 


cm" 


-* 


CN 


LO* 


CM* 




CM* 


o 




rj 


in 


CD 


CO 




CN 


LO 


a> 




05 


o 




"o 


CO 


T 


o_ 


00 


t — 


CN 


CD 


o 


CD 


CM 




< 


CM* 
fa9- 








* 
* 
















,_ 


co 


CD 


CM 


r^ 




,_ 




,_ 








<* 


1^ 


03 


N- 


LO 




LO 




LO 








■<fr 


h-_ 


T— 


, ^- 


T— 




to 




CO 




b 

LU 

Q 


o 


LO* 


CO* 


T-" 


LO* 


a" 




LO* 




LO* 




CD 
O 

—5 


O) 


CO 


03 


CD 


LO 

* 


O 


LO 


o 


LO 


O) 






m 


















05 
























O) 






















, .. 


T— 


> 




>~ 


o 


CO 


a> 


O) 


h- 




r* » 


r~- 




O 




a> 


N- 


t — 


o 


o 


o> 




LO 


LO 




o 

0. 


OO 


CN 


CD 


o 


o 


CD 




,!- 






■<3* 


CO* 


CO 


CO* 


CO* 


CM* 




of 


05 




3 


CO 


T— 


o 


o 


o 


CD 


O 


CM 




jC 


< 


T— 


"3" 


o 


r- 


I-- 


CD 


CN 


^t 






£ 


CM* 




T-~ 










^ 






z: 














* 




* 






< 

-3 




V* 




CO 

a) 




T3 

c 
3 

LL 


"D 
CD 

TO 
C 
CD 




* 

'x" 

CD 

H 
_c/> 




TO 
CD 






CD 

C= 


CO 

CD 


CO 

C 
CD 
Cl 
X 


Q) 


'5. 

CO 

O 

CO 


Q. 
X 

LU 
CO 

73 


CD 

CD 

ro 
c 


CD 
O 
CD 


CD 

E 

o 


>- 

ro 
■o 






CD 


X 


LU 


3 


"c 


c 


CD 


CO 


o 






> 

CD 

a: 


ro 

1- 

CD 


a 

c 


C 
CD 
> 
CD 




3 


o 

CD 
D_ 


CO 

o 

6 


c 
>• 


c 
_cd 






C/> 

10 
o 


c 


CD 


Q_ 


o 

Q. 


03 

'a. 




h- 


d 


03 








ro 


Cl 


Q) 


O 


CD 




Q_ 


"S 


O 






c5 


Q. 


o 


Z 


O 


O 


o 


Q 


~z. 



CM 
00 
O* 



c 

CD 
> 
CD 



CD 

Q 



TO 

C 
CO 

CO 
CO 

a>" 
oo 

LO 
CD 



CD 



CD 
JC 

E 

CD 

o O 

CD 

Q 

T3 

CD 



D. 






< 


CO 


CO 


^ 


C5 


CD 

-1 


E 


CD 




C) 


> 


> 




CD 


CD 



o 

CD 

ol 

c 
_o 

03 

> 

o 

c 

CD 

LT 

03 

N 

CD 



CC ct to 

i~1 w ^ "S -s; D_ 



~ 







o 


o 


^ 


O) 
C3^ 


o 

— ) 

c 
g 

TO 


0) 

o 

c 

TO 
TO 

m 

CD 


LO 

@ 

CD 
CD 


LO 
CM 

© 

CD 

CD 


CL 
D 
o 

CO 




E 

CD 


o 

CL 


'c 


TO 
C 


TO 


c 

TO 


O 

Z 


o 

CJ 

CD 

TO 


CD 
CD 


O 
CD 

0. 


CD 
O 

k_ 

CD 

n 


O 
O 
O 


JZ 
CD 

CJ 

o 


CD 
TO 

CD 


CO 

*c 


CO 

*c 
O 


CO 

"c 
o 


o" 

LO 
LO 


JZ 

h- 
co 




TO 
O 


TO 

L. 

o 


TO 

o 


CO 
CD 


c 
o 


CD 


O 
CJ 


a. 


13 


■? 


CJ 

c 


o 
O 


o 
O 






TO 












n 








« 




TO 




« 




* 





24 



T30T1 : 



s A u F R A N C ' s c o 



n. L. t-ctuunieu L J. J. 

• - Page 1 of 3 
City and Co_nty of San Francisco 




nFPAHTMENT OF PARKING & TRAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

FRED M HAMDUN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

RONALD SZETO, ACTING DIRECTOR, FARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 



December 5, 2001 

Sarah Graham 

Analyst 

Budget Analyst's Office 

Ronald Szeto P. £ 

Acting Director 
Parking Authority 



RE: Japan Center Garage Corporation Lease 



The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written response to the questions that 
you verbally asked to me on December 5, 2001 . 

Question: How were the Japantown Planni/ip. Preservation and Development Task 
Force members appointed or selected? 

Community members whom attended town-hall meetings formed the initial members of 
the Japantown Planning, Preservation and Development Task Force. These initial 
members (approximately 20) were not appointed by any public official. These initial 
members subsequently elected officers and form an executive committee to review other 
nominated members. The executive committee made recommendation to the full Task 
Force which than voted on the recommendations. 

Question 2: VWio are the members of the Japantown Planning. Preservation and 
Development Task Force? 

Attached is a list of the current members. 



y 



H:\PARXllJGAGunigiaUufan CciUcr'Budjjcl Analyn Quntion 12-05-OJ.doc 



(41 5) 554-PARK FAX (41 5) 554.9834 



25 Van Ness Avanus, Suite 410 

25 



San Frjncitco. CA 94102-4576 



■PC ■ 



:^==»n CSNTES SRxP3== 



p HDN= NO. : 554 3=55 
FRX HO. : <'-5 557 :0B^ 



Attachment II 
^age 1 of 3^ 



J.APAJMTOWN PLANNING, PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE 



Sanay Mori, Chair 

Neal Tanlgucni, Treasure' 

Mark Moriguctv, Secr*tary 

Hats Aizawa 

Douglas Dawkins 

Steven Doi 

Rev. Tim Dupre 

Chris Durazo 

Seiko Fujimoto 

Colin Gomez 

Geri Handa 

Roc Honmi 

Daryl Hipashi 

Chn6 Hirsno 

Yo Hironaka 

David Ishida 

Sara Ishlkawa 

Caryl Ito 

Richard Jue 

Karen Kal 

Rev. Masato 

Kav/ahatsu 

Gary Kitahata 

Sax Kltashima 

Travis Kryota 



Dr. Kyo D. Lee 
Osamu Machida 
Greg Marutanl 
Tak Matsuba 
Jeff Mori 
Carol Murata 
Kaz Naganuma 
Steve Nakajo 
Kathy Nefsen 
Rumi Okabe 
Allen Okamoto 
Tak Onishi 
Jarry Ono 
Jon Osaki 
Paul Osaki 
Mln Paek 
Chris Schultz 
Sam Selki 
Kenjl Taguma 
Erlka Tamura 
Win Tsukamoto 
Richard Wada 
Pamela Wu 
J.K. Yamamoto 
George YamaaakJ. Jr. 



DEC-S5-2a01 l?:n 



554 9e95 



26 



98* 



FHDtE nd. : 554 5335 . Attachment II 

rRQM : JflPfiN CEn— R GARAGES F^ no. : 4:5 5S? I034 -,. J .^age ^Ot_._3 -i 

4tE 3*6 6703; DccS-Ci :2:SPW; 

IAPANTQWN IgkffisUtt ■ 

ITS SutarSiiMt Suite 1. San FFsnds», Callb^s 84115 



3aardLiEt 

December 5. 200! 



SbeQi r_Himg 

Doug Dswkins 

Seiko pTijtoato 

Cob-' Gomez 

David bhida 

Cirri Leo, Vice Prsadenr 

Tik W«»ub» 

Jc£f Mod, President* 

Niaik Moriguchi, Scurr.-ir^Trcajuirr* 

Benh Naic^jo 

JoftDsaki 

BobOuuk* 

PatShiono 

Roelyn Tonal 

Marfto Wataaabe 



* iadicicss offices 



Ptan* (415) 346-1238 Far (41?) 3464703 Em* jtowntaafcrcaffluxxoni l 



27 



FRAN 



Attachment III 
Tr a" r i I or ?i 
City and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PARKING t TRAFFIC 



W1LUE LEWIS BROWN. JR.. Mayor 

FRED M HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 




RONALD SZETO. ACTING DIRECTOR. PARKING AUTHORITY 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 30, 2001 

TO: Sarah Graham 

Analyst 
Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Ronald Szeto £,5 

Acting Director 
Parking Authority 

R£: Japan Center Garage Corporation Lease 



The purpose of this memorandum is to provide written response to the questions that you 
verbally asked to me on November 29, 2001. 

Questions: Explain H'/;v the Corporation need to increase the Capital Account from 
15% to 25% and the maximum balance from $1.000.000 to S2.000.000?. Whv is the 
15% insufficient?, and What are the future capital improvements? 

Pursuant to the existing Lease, the Corporation received and deposited $589,336 on 
December 1, 1999 transferred from the Western Addition parking Corporation. Since 
December 1, 1999, the Corporation retained and deposited 15% of net income into the 
Capital Account to fund capital expenditures. 

In almost two years, 2000 and 2001, the Corporation will expend approximately 
S467.339 ($625,890 minus $158,551 for debt repayment to the City) for capital 
improvement while depositing only S265.000 in the capital account. Fortunately, the 
Corporation received $586,336 transferred from the Western Addition Parking 
Corporation as mentioned above. The balance as of October 31, 2001 was $296,322. 

Under the 15% scenario, the Corporation does not have the appropriate funding for all of 
the necessary capital improvements. If this situation persists, then the Corporation will 
need to defer capital works for the ventilation system and the waterproofing or borrow 
fund for said improvements. Deferred waterproofing could lead to expensive structural 
repairs. 



(415) 5S4-PARK FAX(41S)5S4-9e3* 25 Van Ness Avenue. Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94102-4576 

28 



nLL.dLi:i'eilL J. X 1 

Pace 2 of 5 ' 



By authorising the Corporation to retain and deposit 25% of net revenues, the 
Corporation will be in position to address the capital works for the ventilation system and 
the waterproofing in the next several years. Meanwhile, the Corporation will continue 
with parking equipment upgrades, lighting improvement, and to safety enhancements. 
After the ventilation improvement and waterproofing, the Corporation would begin to 
accumulate funds, up to 52,000,000, for future needs. 

In the event that the Corporation were required to address improvements costing over 
$1,000,000 (e.g., structural improvements from an earthquake or adding additional 
access), the Corporation would have more funds available than under the existing lease 
arrangement. 

Attached are the projected sources and uses of funds for both lease arrangements. 



H;M>ARKING\C;irageiUa[Mn CenlervBudgel Aiulysl Quetlion 1 1-29-01. doc 



29 



E-B S* 



Fage J of 4 



< y m 

u i o 



£00 

u o 9 

S"2 



§1 









1 

as 


id: 



S2 
I? 



8 S 



?2 






I a 









T= Si 

si 



1 5 
1 s 



S' fli I | 



S I 



Ill 6 



* * 






§ 5 






, o w. 5 t3 u-i 

30 



5, 5, 5 



I SI! 



• TO a, 

^ 6- > 



rt. L LdUUUlfcUl U X X i_ 

Pape 5 oT 5 



5 $°» 






S D O 



£ o sf 
< M 2 



* la 



• ■g sis 

f 8 
1 £ 



E 



o cm o n r-- o 1 o> 

o r- ri o> a> o o> 

n" o" a> in" V tt" 

cm o "jrj Oil o> c 



IS SI 



J I V 9 „ 

51 1 1 1 I 1 

£ i 



1 1 i 



f ■ i 



s : s 1 ? I * i! &J S 5; & i J S i 1 
1 I § 1 1 < I 1 1 1 1 1 1 % 

j =i ui. ml O] cm a. ™; o. C <S, <» O J) 

31 



s 1 3 a 

1 I H 






5*5 



II 

* r y 



is 

E * 






J « 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 01-2116 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to 
execute an amendment to the Design Agreement to 
provide architectural and engineering services for the 
Laguna Honda Replacement Program by increasing the 
agreement amount by $22,300,283 from $7,599,717 to 
$29,900,000. 

$22,300,283 

Tobacco Settlement Funds 

The Laguna Honda Replacement Program project would 
replace most of the existing facilities that make up the 
Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center and 
renovate the front wings of the existing Main Hospital 
Building at a total estimated cost of $401,600,000. The 
project includes: (a) demolition of all existing hospital 
facilities except for the front wings of the Main Hospital 
Building; (b) construction of four new hospital buildings; 
(c) construction of an assisted living facility; and (d) 
reconfiguration and expansion of the existing parking 
facilities at Laguna Honda Hospital. The renovated 
facilities would provide for (a) 1,200 hospital beds, or 135 
more beds than the 1,065 existing hospital beds; (b) 140 
assisted living beds (there are currently no assisted living 
beds at Laguna Honda Hospital); and (c) a total of 655 off- 
street parking spaces, or 52 spaces more than the existing 
603 spaces. 

Mr. Michael Lane of DPW, Project Manager for the 
Laguna Honda Replacement Program project reports that 
the $29,900,000 Design Agreement includes $6,743,481 
which was previously appropriated for architectural and 
engineering services by the Board of Supervisors in June 
of 2000 (File 00-0772) and an additional $856,236 
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors in the FY 2001- 
2002 budget, or a total of $7,599,717. Mr. Lane advises 
that the subject request for an additional $22,300,283 in 
funding required for the $29,900,000 Design Agreement 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

would be financed from Tobacco Settlement Funds 1 
previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors in 
the FY 2001-2002 budget. According to Mr. Lane, the 
proposed Design Agreement was awarded to Anshen & 
Allen/Gordon H. Chong & Partners, Laguna Honda 
Hospital Joint Venture Architects (Joint Venture) to 
provide all architectural and engineering services needed 
for the Laguna Honda Replacement Program. The Joint 
Venture, which was selected through a Request for 
Qualifications process, is comprised of 38 firms, including 
the two prime contractors, Anshen & Allen and Gordon H. 
Chong & Partners and 36 subcontractors. The original 
Joint Venture agreement was not subject to approval of 
the Board of Supervisors because the contract amount of 
$7,599,717 was less than $10 million. DPW is now 
requesting authorization to increase the current Design 
Agreement with the Joint Venture for architectural and 
engineering services by $22,300,283 from the previously 
authorized agreement amount of $7,599,717 to 
$29,900,000. 

Budget: Attachment I, provided by DPW, contains a list of the 

contractors and subcontractors and their fees for the 
Design Agreement totaling $29,900,000. (See Comment 
No. 1) 

Comments: 1. The DPW has not provided a budget with hours of 

service to be performed and hourly rates for the subject 
Design Agreement. Mr. Lane states that this agreement 
is not based on hourly rates and is instead based on lump 
sum amounts, which will be paid to the Joint Venture 
upon completion of specific project components. The Joint 
Venture will receive payments based on its satisfactory 
completion of its work and its compliance with deadlines 
for the requested architectural and engineering services 



1 As a result of lawsuits filed by the California Attorney General, City and County of San Francisco, 
and other California cities and counties, a settlement agreement was reached in November 1998 
between the State Attorney General and the four major tobacco manufacturers, including Philip 
Morris, Inc. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and 
Lorillard Tobacco Company which includes the payment of approximately $25 billion to the State of 
California over the next 25 years. In August of 1998, the California Attorney General entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the applicable California cities and counties to 
distribute one-half of any settlement from these lawsuits to those California cities and counties. 
Under the MOU, it is anticipated that the City and County of San Francisco will receive between 
$313,400,000 to $442,100,000 over 25 years, subject to certain adjustments. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12. 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

performed. Attachment II, provided by DPW, provides 
further details on the agreement payment structure 
including specific project components, the amounts to be 
paid for each component, an explanation for the basis of 
the amounts being allocated for each project component 
and the benefits to the City of this method of contracting 
m lieu of requiring a stipulated number of hours based on 
hourly rates. 

2. According to Mr. Lane, and as noted above, the total 
estimated project costs for the Laguna Honda Hospital 
Replacement Project is $401,600,000. A summary budget 
for the project is as follows: 

Estimated Construction Costs $289,860,000 

Construction Contingency (7.5 percent) 21.740.000 

Subtotal $311,600,000 

Professional Services & Fees 75,000,000 

Assisted Living Matching Funds 2 15.000.000 

Total $401.600.000 

Attachment III, provided by DPW, contains additional 
cost details for this project. The funding sources for the 
$401,600,000 project as reported by DPW, are as follows: 

General Obligation Bonds approved by the voters 

in the November of 1999 General Election $299,000,000 

Tobacco Settlement Funds (see Footnote No. 1) 100,000,000 

Interest Earnings on Tobacco Settlement Funds 1,400,000 
U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Grant 

for Assisted Living 750,000 

HUD Grant for Temporary Plant 3 450.000 

$401,600,000 



2 The $15,000,000 budgeted for Assisted Living Matching Funds is intended for a HUD approved 
project to include 140 assisted living beds in the proposed Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement 
Project. Currently, Laguna Honda Hospital does not provide any assisted living beds. Mr. Lane 
advises that the General Obligation Bond Measure required that $15,000,000 of bond proceeds be set 
aside for assisted living faculties. HUD has provided a grant of $750,000 for the project. Daryl 
Higashi of the Mayor's Office on Housing advises that staff of DPH and the Mayor's Office on 
Housing are analyzing the feasibility and cost impact of the project. 

3 Temporary Plant refers to temporary power generators and boilers, pending the completion of the 
permanent facilities. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Mr. Lane reports that the General Obligation Bonds, 
approved by the voters in November 1999 have not yet 
been issued pending finalization by DPW of a project and 
construction phasing plan for the Laguna Honda 
Replacement Project. Mr. Lane further reports that, to 
date, the City has received approximately S41 million of 
the estimated $100 million of Tobacco Settlement Funds 
to be used for the Laguna Honda Replacement Program. 

Total estimated project construction costs, including 
$21,740,000 for a 7.5 percent Construction Contingency, 
for the project are $311,600,000. Mr. Lane advises that 
the total amount of the Design Agreement of $29,900,000, 
represents 9.6 percent of the total estimated construction 
costs of $311,600,000. According to Mr. Lane, the fixed fee 
type contract is standard for the industry. Mr. Lane, 
provides further detail on the cost of the Design 
Agreement in Attachment II. The Design Agreement in 
the amount of $29,900,000 is included in the $75,000,000 
Professional Services & Fees in the summary budget 
above. The balance of $45,100,000 budgeted for 
Professional Services & Fees ($75,000,000 less 
$29,900,000) provides for expenditures for the 
Environmental Impact Report, permits, fees, construction 
management, inspections and the design to be performed 
in-house by DPWs Bureau of Architecture. Mr. Lane 
reports that in-house DPW design work will only be used 
for the renovation of the front wings of the existing Main 
Hospital Building and not for the design of the new 
buildings to be prepared by the Joint Venture. 

3. Mr. Lane states that DPW initially entered into the 
Design Agreement with the Joint Venture for $6,743,481. 
The $6,743,481 was appropriated, including $3,371,740 
placed on reserve pending selection of the Contractor for 
the Design Agreement, by the Board of Supervisors in 
June of 2000. Subsequently the Board of Supervisors 
released the $3,371,740 in May of 2001 after DPW had 
awarded the contract to the Joint Venture. The Board of 
Supervisors subsequently approved an additional 
$856,236 in the FY 2001-2002 budget, for a total current 
Agreement amount of $7,599,717. Of the $7,599,717 
previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors for 
architectural and engineering services for the Laguna 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Honda Replacement Project, according to Mr. Lane, the 
DPW has expended $6,516,695 as of November 30, 2001. 
This resolution would authorize DPW to increase the 
amount of the Design Agreement by $22,300,283 to a 
total amount of $29,900,000. According to Mr. Lane, the 
reason that only $7,599,7171 was previously requested by 
DPW rather than the total $29,900,000 Design 
Agreement amount, representing 9.6 percent of the 
estimated construction costs was because the design 
process has been performed in phases and the Joint 
Venture was required to complete the schematic plan 
before the DPW recommended increasing the Design 
Agreement to $29,900,000. 

4. Mr. Lane reports that DPW advertised the Request for 
Qualifications for the initial Agreement in the San 
Francisco Examiner, and that three firms responded to 
the Request for Qualifications: including (a) Anshen & 
Allen/Gordon H. Chong & Partners, Laguna Honda 
Hospital Joint Venture Architects, (b) Skidmore, Owens, 
Merrill (SOM)/Smith Group, and (c) Kaplan, McLaughlin, 
Diaz (KMD)/Gerson Overstreet. Attachment IV, provided 
by DPW, explains the criteria DPW used to evaluate 
proposals and why Anshen & Allen/Gordon H. Chong & 
Partners, Laguna Honda Hospital Joint Venture 
Architects was selected. Mr. Lane states that firms were 
not required to include cost estimates in their proposals, 
and as stated in Attachment IV, "Cost was not one of the 
evaluation criterion." 

5. Mr. Lane reports that DPW retained an outside 
auditor to analyze the contractors and subcontractor costs 
in order to ensure compliance with Federal standards 
that may be required to receive Federal funds for the 
project in the future. 

6. Mr. Lane advises that construction on the Laguna 
Honda Hospital Replacement Project is expected to begin 
in June of 2002 and that the project is anticipated to be 
largely functional in April of 2007 and fully completed by 
the year 2011. Mr. Lane explains that between 2007 and 
2011 the last building containing 420 beds will be 
constructed and activated. The Assisted Living facilities 
would be completed by October of 2011. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



13. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MODIFIED CONTRACT SHOWING M/WBE PARTICIPATION 



Attachment I 





OISGPUNE 


FIRM KAME 


NEGOTIATED CONTRACT 


FIRM NAME 




NEGOTIATED 
CONTRACT 


% MBE 


% WBE 


PRJME CONSU-TAN'S 
SUBCONSULTANTS 


ARCHITECTURAL 

ARCHITECTURAL 
SUBCONSULTANTS 

STRUCTURAL 

MECHANICAL 

ELECTRICAL 
CODE CONSULT 
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 
HOSPITAL OPTS 
FOOD SERVICE 
LAUNDRY DESIGN 

COST 4 VE 

TELEMED1C1NE 
MATERIALS MCMNT 

ELEVATORS 
ACOUSTICS 

GEOTECHNICAL 

CTV1L ENG 

LANDSCAPE 

INTERIORS 

TELCOM 4 IT 

SECufurr 

GRAPHICS 
HISTORICAL 
TRAFFIC 4 PKG 
RENDERJNGS 
MODELS 
ADVISORY COUNCIL 

EUTE REPROGRAPHICS 
DIRECT EXPENSES 
ALLOWANCE 


ANSHEN-ALL^N 


SS ?5C SB3 






ANSHEN-ALLEN 












GHCP 


S2 909 073 






GHCP 












KOOAMAOIESNO 


S249622 


83*, 




KOOAMAOIESNO 






















POWELL 


$500 015 


■ 6-1. 




POWELL 












TSANG ARCHITECTURE 


$939 861 


3 14% 




TSANG ARCHITECTURE 












AVTVA UTMAN-CLEPER ARCMS 


$500 134 




1 67% 


AVIVA UTMAN-CLEPER ARCHS 












VAN DER RYHN ARCHITECTS 


$137,681 






VAN DER RYHN ARCHITECTS 






















FORELL-ELSESSER 


$882 857 






FORELL-ELSESSER 


RUTHERFORD A CHEKENF_ INC 


$994 347 






RUTHERFORD A CHEKENE INC 












BELLO VENNARJ 


$631,315 


2 11% 




BELLO VENNARJ 












AHSAH 


$473 821 




I 58% 


ANSARJ 




OVE ARUP 


51 S10 519 






OVE ARUP 












SJ ENGINEERS 


$1 121,976 


3 •!*. 




SJ ENGINEERS 


OVE ARUP 


$937,072 






OVE ARUP 


FW & ASSOCLATES 


5588,755 


1 97% 




FW 4 ASSOCIATES 


ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES 


S18 200 






ROLF JENSEN 4 ASSOCIATES 












GENE BURTON 


$217,180 






GENE BURTON 












FIRST CONSULTING GROUPlKAUFFMAN) 


$73 106 






FIRST CONSULTING GROUP 












ONI 


S38Z13S 






CINI 












CINl/GlANCOLA 


$71,396 






CINVGIANCOLA 




JONES ASSOC 


S6.300 


02% 




JONES ASSOC 
















HANSCOMB ASSOC 


$508 640 






HANSCOMB ASSOC 


W LEE CORP 


5283 780 


95% 




M LEE CORP 


UC DAVIS TELEHEALTH 


SO 






UC DAVIS TELEHEALTH 


LERCH BATES 


S41.0O0 






LERCH BATES 


HATE/HAL SOLI/TIOHS U 8EAVER) 


J 15, 000 






MATERIAL SOLUTIONS IJ. BEAVER) 


LERCH BATES 


$64 590 






LERCH BATES 


CHARLES SALTER 


S21.52B 






CHARLES SALTER 


TOW1LL 


196.000 






TOW1LL 


URS/DAMES MOORE 


S-401.617 






URS/OAMES MOORE 


ROBERT CHEW GEO 


$310,116 


1 04% 




ROBERT CHEW GEO 


OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS 


$1 069 568 


3 58% 




OUVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS 


CHERYL BARTON- 


$611 065 




2 04% 


CHERYL BARTON- 


ORLANDO DIAZ-A2CUY OESrCNS 


$19640 


07% 




ORLANDO DIA2-A2.CUY DESIGNS 


KAJ-YEE WOO ASSOC 


$712,005 


: 3«% 




KAI-YEE WOO ASSOC 


FOUGERON ARCHfTECTURE 


$213 COO 




71% 


1-OUGfcRON ARCHITECTURE 


TSANG ARCHfTECTURE 


$25,000 


08% 




TSANG ARCHITECTURE 


— 


ANSHEH*ALLEN INTERIORS 


5469 000 






ANSHEN-ALLEN INTERIORS 


JS NOLAN 


$55,375 




19% 


JS NOLAN 


ARUP COMMUNICATIONS 


$29 488 






ARUP COMMUNICATIONS 


JV- VANTAGE ft. KC* 








JV . VANTAGE 4 KC" 


VANTAGE 


$109 093 






VANTAGE nU-JTTTUTf (OK OVT A-U-l 


KC FUTURE PLANNING 


$272,248 




091% 


kc future planning, inc 


— 


GLOVEft'RESNKZX 


$130,340 






GLOVtR-BESNICK 


KATE KEATING ASSOC 


$200 389 




67% 


KATE KEATING ASSOC 


PAGE ft TURNBALL 


$0 






PAGE 4 TURNBALL 


CXS CONSULTING 


570 400 


24% 




CHS CONSULTING 


MARKUS LU1 & ASSOC 


$19000 


06% 





MARKUS LUI 4 ASSOC 


RATIO. INC 


$38 000 




RATIO. INC 

L£XW«»»OCK CWYNC5. SECKEPL CO-lE*. KAY3E"- 
JOHNS -mim, CMUNG HMCnvATT RASE* 


l£jg*«*»ocx. cimrti iecuh concn hatse*- 
jomns. pwuttt cmung m»#GFw*n kaoem 


$72,000 


















S1CCCI00 




33% 


ELITE REPROGRAHICS 




51 728 704 






DIRECT EXPENSES 






$17 444 






ALLOWANCES 


| TOTAL COnTkaCT 




S29.90u.000 


21.90% 


8.11% 





38 




Attacnmern .l-l 

Page 1 of 3 City & County of San Francisco 

Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement Program 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Mitchell H. Katz, MD, Director of Public Health 

Edwin M. Lee Director of Public Works 



December 6, 2001 



Ms. Sarah Graham 
Budget Analyst's Office 



PROJECT: Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement Project 



SUBJECT: Contract Modification #2 

Anshen & Allen Architects/Gordon H. Chong & Partners, a Joint Venture 
Contract Structure 



Dear Ms. Graham: 

This is in response to your questions regarding the structure of the Proposed Contract 

Modification #2 and the benefits to the City of this structure. 

For a typical project, standard industry practice is for Architects to provide their services for a 
fixed fee, which is paid incrementally, in accordance with the terms of the contract, as the 
deliverables specified in the contract are provided The underlying philosophy is that the risk of 
providing the deliverables should be bome by the entity better able to manage that risk: in this 
case the Architect. Because the scope of work for this project is so large, the initial phases of this 
contract (Interim and Modification #1 ) were done on a time and material basis. This allowed the 
Architect to complete to the Schematic Design Phase and develop a defined scope of work for 
the remaining design and construction related phases. With the remaining work defined, it was 
contemplated that the contract would be converted to a lump sum with the Architect bearing the 
responsibility for delivering the project within that stated sum. 

This Proposed Contract Modification #2 follows the industry standard for contracting for 
Architectural services. Attachment 15 of my previous submittal includes a draft of the contract, 
which will be used for this modification. This draft was reviewed and approved by the City 
Attorney's office (Deputy City Attorney George Wong, 554-39 4 2). 

Section 1.1 of the Contract requires that the Architect perform complete design and construction- 
related services for the Project. Section 1 .2 of the Contract specifies that the Architect is 
responsible for designing the project to a fixed budget, which is also specified in the contract. If 
construction bids come in higher, the Architect is required to redesign the project at their own 
cost, in order to meet the project budget. 



375 Laguna Honda Boulevard, San Francisco, CA 94116 
(415)759-4583 Fax (41 5) 759-4584 

39 



Attachment, u 
Page 2 ot J 



Section 3.1 of the contract further specifies the Architects responsibilities. This includes 
securing all necessary permits and other local and State approvals. Section 3.2 specifies the 
deliverables required during the Design Phases of the contract: Schematic Design, Design 
Development and Construction Documents. Section 3.3 specifies the deliverables required 
during the Construction Phases of the contract: Construction Bid Phase, Construction 
Administration Phase and Warranty Phase. Attachment 7 of the Contract, Program Schedule (not 
included- see Monthly Report on the website) specifies the dates that the deliverables are 
required, for example, March 14, '02 for Design Development and November 14, 02 for 
Construction Documents. 

For completeness, the Interim Contract and Modification #1 are included, as part of, the 
ProDOsed Contract Modification #2 (See Contract Section 2.20) and the terms of the 
Modification #2 apply to all work performed. 

The Architect was requested to provide work plans so that the City could evaluate whether a 
sufficient level of effort was planned to justify the current cost. The work plans were evaluated to 
verify that all necessary tasks were addressed, that the appropriate staff were performing those 
tasks and that sufficient hours were allotted for the staff performing the tasks. The work plans 
will not be part of the contract and will not be used as a basis of invoicing. At the 
recommendation of the City Attorney's office, the draft contract is being modified to delete 
references to the Work Plan. I concur with this recommendation. The terms of the contract are 
binding for the fixed fee specified. Should additional work be required in order to meet the terms 
of the contact over and above that indicated in the work plans, it is the Architects responsibility 
to perform that work at their own expense. By entering into this contract the Architect is 
agreeing to provide all services specified therein for the fixed fee. 

The amounts for each of the design and construction phases will be specified in Section 4 of the 
Contract (currently not filled in). They are: 

Schematic Design: S 7,599,717 

Design Development: S 5,419,205 

Construction Documents: $10,113,720 

Construction Bid Phase: $ 1,218,575 
Construction Administration Phase 

and Warranty Phase: $ 5.548.783 

TOTAL FEE £29,900.000 

These amounts were developed in negotiations with the Architect after the City reviewed their 
work plans and proposals. The total fee is within industry standards, for design and construction 
services for a new hospital when expressed as percentage of the estimated construction cost. A 
survey of architectural fees by the organization Guidelines, published in 1999, puts fees for the 
full range of services provided here, in the 9.5-13% range. 
Section 4.1.5 spells out the schedule for making the payments for each of these phases. 



375 Laguna Honda Boulevard, San Francisco, CA 94116 
(415)759-1583 Fax (415) 759-4584 



40 

gov P. 03 



Ar.tac nmeuL-_ 
Page 3 ol 



The City benefits overall because the contract amount is reasonable given the level of effort 
required to perform the necessary design work and the Architect will bear all risk for any 
additional work required to complete the project with the financial resources available, as 
specified in the contract 



I trust that you will find this information sufficient. I can be reached at 759-4595 or by pager 
207-5165. 



Very truly yours. 




Michael Lane 
Program Manager 



Attachments 



cc: George Wong, Deputy City Attorney 
Chron 



41 



Attacarn.ent ill 
Page 1 ot !) 





■ 
































u =a 


CM 


CM 




CM 




CM 




CM 


CM 




CO 


T 








































a o 


O 


0) 




o 








CJ 


tu 






O 










co 


0) 




a 




0) 




o 


a> 




o 


0) 








- - 
































*0 C/5 


w 


co 




CO 




co 




CO 


CO 




CO 


CV5 








DC 






































O 




o 




o 




o 




O 


O 


O 


o 










«■> 




fa*> 




t/> 




U) 




tf> 


t/> 


*/» 


(A 




o 
































































































re 
































































































re 
































> 






















































in 




o 


o 






co 


to 


CM 


ai 




CO 


CO 






« 






o 


o 






CO 


O) 


CO 




o 


C7> 


CD 






m 


m 


CO 


o 


o 






CO 


m 


CT> 


CO 


CO 


CO 












■c 








4? -» 


CM 


L- 


r^ 


CO 


T 


CO 


CO 


f-- 


CO 


o 


co" 


CO 


o" 
o 


o" 

o 




ro 


O) 


CM 


CO 












CO 




■c- 


o 


to 








CO 


^- 


CO 


CD 


in 


GO 












































in 






CD _0 




CM 


O 


a> 


O 


ai 


O) 










, ^- 




o 






o> 


in 


m 


tv* 


CO 








CO 




ro 




bH 


•<r 




1 1 




*A 






CM 


tv» 


CM 






t^ 


M 






v» 




t/> 




tv> 




U=t 




*** 


















■- or 
































3 
































o 


































CO 


C£) 


CM 


a> 


,_ 


in 


CO 


in 


^_ 


•a- 


in 


CD 


o 


o 






CO 


O) 


CO 




o 


00 


O) 


CO 


CD 






CO 


o 


o 




0) 


n 


en 


O) 


to 


to_ 


m 


t- 


CO 


O 


^3- 


in 


•^T 


o_ 


o_ 




D> 


cm" 


in" 


f^ 


co" 


■<3- 


ro" 


CO 


i^ 


CD 


o 


to* 


co" 


o" 


o" 




"0 


n 


o> 


CM 


CO 




CM 


ro 


CO 




CO 


m 




o 


o 




3 


r*- 


CO 


■^ 


CO 


CO 


in 


CO 


0» 


CO 


1— 


O) 


ED 


o 


to 




m 


r*- 


cm" 


o" 


Ol" 


o" 


a> 


en 


o" 


O 


^ 


^-" 


tt" 


m* 


T- 




to 


o> 


m 


m 


hft 


CO 




r- 




O 






r- 




o 




3 




«<> 


CM 




CM 


f» 




ty> 


CO 


tv» 


CO 


tv> 








_o 


tv» 




«» 




«/» 




V* 




kf> 




tv» 






4* 




> 
































01 
































































Q. 


































to 


CO 


CM 


O 


,- 


in 


CD 


in 


,- 


CD 


1^. 


^T 


o 


o 






CO 


0) 


CO 




o 


o 


O) 


to 


CD 


■c 


o 


C71 


o 


o 




01 


CO 


m 


e» 


CD 


ID 


in 


t- 


CO 


O 


T- 


CM 


r- 


o_ 


o_ 




o> 


CM 


in 


K." 


to" 


•^ 


CO 


co" 


r~ 


co" 


co" 


^- - 


co" 


o" 


o" 




"O 


ro 


o> 


CM 


CO 




CM 


CO 


CO 


CM 


cn 




r- 


o 


e 




3 


I-*. 


CD 


*T 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


o> 


CO 


CO 


CM 


CO 


o 


ID 




CO 


r~." 


cm" 


o" 


o>" 


o 


Ol 


o> 


o" 


o" 


CO 


Ol" 


r*- 


in" 


T^" 




a 


o> 




in 


</» 


to 




r- 


CM 


o 


kft 


O 






o 




e 




V) 


CM 




CM 


tf» 


CM 


vt 


CO 




CO 


tf> 


t/» 


•* 






tv> 




v> 




v> 




tv> 




b^ 




iff 






VO 




& 
































n 
































■ 
































ffi 














































c 








C 
























5 








o 
























o 








"o 
























o 








D 


w 






















c 


5? 






C 

o 

CJ 


V 


T> 


t- 






to 












o 


CO 






> 


C 


LU 






O 
(J 




~ 








o 


r- 




CO 


CO 

CO 


3 

u. 


a 




E 


•o 

0) 
TO 




o 








"5 








"o 


O) 


3 




a 




u 

-o 

0) 


CO 


TO 
CD 


CO 


TO 

c/5 


c 

0) 
Cn 




re 


TJ 
C 
LU 


"ti 
c 
o 


o 


m 
_i 
< 






2 




CO 


c 


TO 


r*- 


TO 


"c 


M 





TO 


« 


TO 

2 


O 






CO 

5 




CO 

u 

LU 


CD 

c 


O 

O 


c 

0) 


O 

o 


o 
O 

c 


o 
o 

c 
o 


c 

c 
o 


O 
O 


"o 


cn 


H 






■D 


c 




TJ 


o 


to 


c 


TO 






U 


TO 


XI 


ZJ 








0J 


a; 


O 


0) 


c 


ID 


o 


3 


E 


£ 


CD 


■o 

0) 










re 


TO 


c 


TO 




ra 






ro 


TO 


TO 








c 


CO 


E 


cn 


E 


O 


E 


u 


In 




P 


E 


5 








M 


in 


a 


01 


« 


to 




c 
o 


C 

o 


O 


« 


« 


In 








LU 




LU 


Q 


LU 


as 


LU 


O 


U 


c~ 


LU 


LU 


< 






M 


^ 


CM 


to 


■*?• 


in 


CO 


r^ 


CO 


co 


o 


£ 


CM 


ro 


■^ 



42 



ftiuacnmeni 111 
Pas;e 2 oF 3" 



o o o o ;r- 
o t» y* &> x 



o o o o o 

(f> ifi> «/» fa% Vh 



o o o o o 

o o o o t/» 

"» co o o 

o" cm" (N <d" 

m v- »- t- 

IT) t- <— LO 

co" - ^" "*" 

kf> ifi <f> 



CD O O "tf 

■W CN O O 

cm_ t>- in o_ 

co" a" cm" co" 

o o> co o 

co co en co 



in co co t o 

co o i- co CT> 
n co cm cm m 



o o o 



to. CD O 

co in o 

en o in 

en t o" 



Tf O T- 



c ™ 

= ffi Ol 



o o o o o 

o o o o o 

co_ o o_ o o 

co cm" cm* co" cm" 

to. 1- 1- -q- 05 

co t- t- m o 



CD O O ■» 

•or cm o o 

cm in in o 

co" t cm" CO 

O CO CO o 

CO ■*— CO CO 



Tj- o in t— o 



in co co t o 

CO O *- CD O) 

CO CO CN CN O) 

«► r-" to." to." ^- _ 

&y v> v* to- 



o o o in 

o t- o in 

in in co en 

cm r- co in 



O T- O CO T- 

m 05 CD t- *- 
CM CD fo. O CD 



CO CO 
CO CO 
CO CO 



< 






C/> 


Q 


1- 




V) 


< 


O 




o 


1- 




111 


z 


o 


o 


a 


1- 



— S "= "i 

C a, c * S 

J5 0) » Q >, 3 

0- .y ffl « J= to 

— > XI 0) C _ 

■ a, < 3 uj z 

c M « o S 2 

^!»55 



5 E s 

q. Q> re 



id ; 

= Q. 

5 E 







— 


c 


m 




en 




tv 






TO 


re 








0) 


a. 


ofl 






< 


— 


in 


>~ 










tn 








n 




o 




a- 


"5 




B 


a 


o 

c 






UJ 


o 
rT 


CD 


LJ 


















CD 


a, 


CO 


c 


= 


M 






_) 





— "F D" 2 

51 B ; C -^ 

■o c O := < 



£T o 



:2 3 _ • S -s ST <c 



— io E 
-t a> 

» i a. 



x S. 



CO 

5 
a 


-J 


F 


5 


E 

B 


c 




■n 




0) 


K 


3 


cn 





CO 

C 
_o 

c 

r 


a> 


CO 


a> 
E 

CO 


■e 


CO 

D 

a 



J2 — CD 



O 3 ^ II 

O u. h- 



■£ E 



« n E -* 

°- CO CD CO 

g x a a. 





O 


•^ 




B 

c 

T3 


o 

CO 

o 

or 


CO 
CO 

Q. 

a> 
a. 


c 
a> 
E 
2 

(7 


M 






Q 








4 






U) 





.— <- c 



43 



n L. LdCllUieil L XXX 

Page 3 of 3 



































co 






















cj a 








t— 






















O) D) 








z 






















D 3 








111 






















m cd 








E 






















c c 








S 






















o o 








O 




in CD gS 






5? 




r*~ 


£? S? 






CO '— — 
CJ CJ 








o 




Sheet 
Sheet 
nated 






■D 




"5 

CJ 


B 2Z 






IGOt 

<;tru 
stru 
















n 




co 


<z rc 






W 5 o 












Q) Q) ~ 










CD 








f ou 












0) CD 10 










01 


W 1/5 






CD 

co £ S 












CO CO 111 






Hi 




co 


111 HI 
















i- co o 


Ol 


O 


o 




o 


O O 


CD 




5" o o 


a 


o 








^ ID« 


o 


o 


u~ 




fe<5- 


*& <*> 


CO 




CM fo* t« 


<^> 


</> 




<D 




ro o 


lt> 


in 










co_ 












U 




ID CO 


m 


^-* 










^-" 




O 












CM o 


CM 


«/> 










CM 




co 








ro 




<A CM 


<J* 












«* 




CM 












fe<> 


















69 








re 






























> 






























"5 




£ § o 


(T. 


o 


■s 




o 


o o 


CD 




o ° ° 

x: fc^ t& 


o 

o 


co 

CO 




°> ■* 




to o S 


o 


o 


T. 




o 


o o 


r^ 




o 


o 


^ , 




■a 




- - o 


in 


in 




o_ 


o o 


en 




CO 
CM_ 








3 C 

m o 




rsi co - 
ct> o °, 

s co 5 


ro" 
CM 




r-- 




o" 

o 


o" o 
o o 


CM 




o" 
o 
uo 


CO 

^ > 

(O 




*4 'In 

el 




<* ™ °- 
co <*> 






e» 




o 

ld" 


O LO 

co" I---" 






en 
CM_ 


fe^ 






3 K 

u 




<y» 


y~ 


U) 






v> 


*F> <J* 


fe^ 




co" 












§ So 


o 


O 


CD 
CO 




o 


o o 


O 




ri ° ° 


o 
o 


CD 
CO 




H „ 




S.S.g 


h& 


CO 


<* 




o 


o o 
o o 


fa9 




O 


o 


^ 




= CD 
O O) 




to o _- 
co o g 
h* to 2 






N." 

r- 




o" 
o 


o" o" 
o o 






o" 
o 


o" 

o 

LO 


CO 

CO 




I? 




£ ^1- °. 
CO n 






t« 




o 
m" 


o in 

co" h~" 






in 
co" 


<y> 








V* 






















to- 








V* 










V* 


V* Vi 






«/» 








1 J 




co ro cm 






CD 




o 


■v o 






moo 


o 


■«■ 






in co ■<- 






O 




CD 


CM CO 






!>-«(<»«/» 


fc<> 


o 




o) ai o 




O CO CM 






•r^ 




o_ 


■<r in 






O 




t~- 




— « 3 




CO" tt CM" 






CO 






T" O* 






r~" 




co" 




ss re u 




r>- t- o> 






^r 




CD 


CO CO 










h- 




S! * £ 

re o) E 
CD -o o 




r- o o 
•*T CO* 






in 




in 


cd" r«-" 






in 
co" 




CO 






co 










*• 












r~- 




3 " 






























m O 




V* iff V* 






fc»» 




V> 


V* v> 






w» 




V* 








B9 


































01 






























to 




u 






























111 




2 






























o 




CD 
CO 








(/) 

0) 


CD 


U) 






CD 












> 
K 
m 


in 

■ 

CJ 


port 

Design 

sultant 








(J 

s 


2 

cd 


o 

CJ 






O 












co 


2 




01 


in 


CD 
CO 


CO 


"H 


£. 




CD 
CO 












< 
z 
o 
55 
to 
111 


CJ 
CO 

c 
a 

X 

CD 

a 


ental Impact Re 
ire/Engineering 
s Materials Con 


c/> 
in 
O 


03 

o 

O 

o 

-D 

ro 
_l 


C 

a 

3 

c/> 

5 
U 


e 
_o 

o 

3 

c 


5 
E 

CD 

a> 
ro 
c: 
ro 


•g 

c: 


CD 

t- 
o 


i2 


CD 

E 

CD 

a 

re 
E 


e 

CD 

E 

CJ 










IX 
O 
CT 






u 


5 


10 

3 

a 


o 
U 


5 
c 
o 


CD 
1- 


u cj 

CJ CJ 

D. u. 


o 
O 


re 

2 


CD 

c 

CD 
2 






o 
O 

"re 
o 




a. 




nvironm 
rchitectt 
azardou 


TJ 

c 
o 
CD 

i 


e 
o 
m 


e 
co 

a 

CJ 
00 




u 

C 

o 




■s; B 

CD .t= 

« E 

CD E 

Q. CJ 


•a 
a 


m 

CJ 




E 

CD 

DB 
O 


< i 

O CO 

S 3 

3 <2 


c 
o 

ro 
> 








UJ < I 


a 


0. 


5 




O 




co a 


rx 




rx 


a. £ 


< 


y- 




« 




l- CM CO 






TT 




m 


CD h- 






OfflO 


- 


CM 



44 







City & County of San Francisco 
Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement Program 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Mitchell H. Katz, MD, Director of Public Health 

Edwin M. Lee Director of Public Works 



May 10, 2001 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst Office 

Board of Supervisors 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Subject RFQ for Architectural Services 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

The Architect for the Laguna Honda Replacement Hospital was selected through a competitive 
qualifications-based process. This is consistent with selecting professional services contractors. An 
RFQ was advertised in the paper on January 4, 2000 (CNS1 758254). Invitations to participate were not 
sent out to individual firms. The Architect was required to have completed or have under construction, at 
a minimum, one S100M hospital, three $50M medical buildings, one master plan for a medical campus 
and one S20M City project Similar qualifications applied to the major subconsultants. Three proposals 
were received on May 8, 2000. 

The selection process included a technical screening, and a scored interview. Only teams who passed 
the technical screening would be invited for interviews. All three firms passed the technical screening. 
The selection was based on evaluation criteria which were included and explained in the RFQ. The 
evaluation criteria included the proposers' understanding of the project, their vision for the new hospital, 
additional experience beyond the minimum required, the organization of their team, availability to 
perform, quality control, cost control and project management procedures and experience dealing with 
the State regulatory agency for hospital construction. Cost was not one of the evaluation cnterion. 

An independent panel of seven people with health care background was selected to conduct the 
interviews and score the teams. Representatives of the Department of Public Works, the City Attorney's 
office and the Human Rights Commission, attended but did not participate in the interviews. Interviews 
were held on Jury 13, 2000. 

The panelists scored each team independent^ and the scores were added up and the ranking of the 
teams released. In accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance, the panelists' names and their individual 
scores were also released. 

After the protest penod had past negotiations began with the highest ranked firm: Anshen-rAJlen/Gordon 
Chong & Partners. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 759-4595. 
Sincerely, 



Michael Lane 
Program Manager 



375 Laguna Honda Boulevard San Francisco, CA 04116 
(415) 75S^15» Fax (415) 759-4554 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 01-2063 



Item: 



Description: 



Hearing on the Mayor's Budget instructions to City 
Departments for the FY 2002-2003 budget. 

On November 26, 2001 the Mayor and the Controller 
issued the "Mayor's Policy Instructions and Controller's 
Technical Instructions for Budget Year 2002-2003". 

Consistent with a preliminary estimate provided in a joint 
report from the Controller, the Mayor's Budget Director 
and the Budget Analyst, the Executive Summary portion 
of the Mayor's Policy Instructions states that the Mayor's 
Office is currently projecting a $175 million budget 
shortfall for FY 2002-2003. This projected shortfall is due 
to: a) the anticipated $60 to $100 million decline from 
actual General Fund revenues received in FY 2000-2001 
for the current 2001-2002 fiscal year; b) increased salary 
and fringe benefit costs due to approved Memoranda of 
Understanding with City labor organizations which will 
increase costs to the General Fund by an estimated $75 
million; and, c) the expectation that the current Fiscal 
Year 2001-2002 year-end balance will be significantly less 
than the $148.7 million surplus from FY 2000-2001 used 
to fund this year's FY 2001-2002 budget. 

The Mayor's Policy Instructions state that the Mayor is 
projecting no revenue growth over Fiscal Year 2001-2002 
budget levels for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget. 

As a result of the budget factors described above, the 
Mayor is instructing City departments to prepare budget 
submissions that "significantly reduce their General Fund 
subsidy in FY 2002-2003". Departments have been 
instructed to meet two goals: 



1) Each department has been instructed to absorb all cost 

increases within their current year General Fund 

subsidy. These costs will include salary and fringe 

benefit cost increases, which are estimated to cost 

approximately 5.5 percent of current salary and fringe 

benefit budgeted expenditures, in Fiscal Year 2002- 

2003. These absorbed costs total approximately $75 

million citywide, which is still less than the projected 

shortfall of $175 million. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

2) Accordingly, departments have been instructed to 
submit, in priority order, additional budget reductions 
that would reduce each department's General Fund 
contribution by 10 percent. The Mayor's Budget Office 
notes that it will review the need to enact individual 
reduction proposals as the budget process progresses 
and the projections for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 are 
refined. 

The table below details the critical dates for preparation and 
approval of the FY 2002-2003 budget included in the Mayor's 
Policy Instructions and Controller's Technical Instructions for 
Budget Year 2002-2003. 

Major Budget Deadlines 

Final Budget Preparation System submission to Controller Wednesday, February 20, 2002 

Program Expenditure & other Reports to 

Controller and Mayor Wednesday, February 20, 2002 

Controller's Submission to the Mayor Friday, March 1, 2002 

Preliminary Budget (based on Departmental Budget Submissions 

to the Mayor) sent to the Board of Supervisors Monday, April 1, 2002 

Mayor's Recommendation to theBoard Friday, May 31, 2002 

Enactment of Interim Appropriation Ordinance - no later than Sunday, June 30, 2002 

Initial Board of Supervisors Budget Consideration - no later than Monday, July 15, 2002 

Final Budget Consideration - no later than Wednesday, July 31, 2002 



The remainder of the Mayor's Policy Instructions presents a 
summary of significant technical changes for the preparation of 
the FY 2002-2003 departmental budgets. 

The Attachment to this report provides a copy of the Executive 
Summary of the Mayor's Policy Instructions and a Summary of 
Changes to the Departmental Submission Process. 






Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Attachment 

Page 1 of 3 

II. MAYOR'S POLICY INSTRUCTIONS 
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Mayor's Office projects a SI 75 million budget shortfall in FY 2002-2003 given current spending 
levels. This projected shortfall is the result of three primary factors: 

• In recent years, discretionary revenue growth has offset increased costs of performing City 
services - increased labor costs, non-salary inflation, and a growing population's demand for 
services. In the current year, discretionary tax revenues are expected to drop by S60 to SI 00 
million below budgeted levels as a result of a slowing economy compounded by the terrorist 
attacks of September 1 1, 2001. Given a current year loss of this magnitude, we are projecting no 
growth over budgeted levels in the coming fiscal year. 

• Labor costs are expected to rise by approximately S75 million versus the current year. This is 
primarily the result of known Memoranda of Understanding which provide for agreed to wage 
increases for the vast majority of City employees in FY 2002-2003. An additional workday in FY 
2002-2003 and increased benefit rates account for a small portion of this increase. 

• The current year's budget relies upon a starting balance of SI 48 million, a surplus generated in the 
prior year. Given the current year revenue loss of S60 to $100 million, our office assumes we will 
end the current year with a surplus substantially less than that of the prior year. 

As a result of this projected shortfall, we are instructing departments to prepare budget submissions that 
significantly reduce their General Fund subsidy in FY 2002-2003. 

• The target for each department will be calculated assuming that departments will absorb projected 
personnel cost increases for the upcoming fiscal year, an approximate 5.5% increase. These 
reductions should be loaded into the budget system as part of the February submission to the 
Controller's Office. Department performance measure goals for the coming fiscal year should 
assume these funding levels. 

• The absorbed labor costs total approximately S75 million across all General Fund departments, less 
than the City's projected shortfall. Accordingly, each department is instructed to submit and 
prioritize additional expenditure reduction proposals that, if enacted, would reduce the department's 
General Fund subsidized budget by an additional 10%. Our office will weigh the need to enact 
individual proposals following the March submission date. 

The Mayor's Office thanks you in advance for your careful review of the instructions that follow. In an 
effort to streamline reporting and analysis of departmental budget submissions, we have solicited 
departmental input on budget submission formats and have incorporated several key changes into this 
year's process. 

Please submit three hard copies and one electronic copy of your budget proposal by Wednesday, 
February 20,2002. 



Source: Mayor's Policy Instructions and Controller's Technical Instructions for Budget Year 2002-2003 

48 



Attachment 

Page 2 of 3 

B. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DEPARTMENTAL SUBMISSION PROCESS 

The Mayor's Budget Office has streamlined the process for submission of Budget Proposals for FY 
2002-2003. This document highlights the major changes introduced this fiscal year, for ease of 
understanding and compliance by departments. For detailed descriptions of reporting requirement 
changes, please refer to the Section C. Budget Form Instructions directly. 

Copies of all budget forms can be downloaded in Microsoft Excel format from the City's intranet site 
(http://citycenter.ci.sf.ca.us), or disk copies can be obtained by calling Pamela Levin at 55^-7554. 

Overall Budget Form Changes: 

Our office has eliminated three budget forms and modified the remaining four. To accommodate a 
decrease in revenues for FY 2002-2003, we have added three budget forms: 1) a Budget Reduction 
Detail Form, 2) a Budget Reduction Summary Form, and 3) a Revenue Generation Form. 

Please review the instructions for each form carefully, as reponing and detail requirements for each 
form have changed. 

Eliminated Forms: 

Vacancy Report Form Vacancy reports will now be compiled by the Mayor's Budget Office and 
the Controller's Office, as needed. 

Work-Order Agreement and Summary Forms Work Order details should be reported by 
requesting departments by sub-object detail (Character 081) in the Program Expenditure Report. 
Performing departments can obtain summary statements of work-order requests from the 
Controller's Office. 

Spending authority for work order departments is driven by the requesting departments. 
Performing departments should confirm that their budgeted work order amounts accurately reflect 
the work order submissions of requesting departments, via BPREP. If disagreements arise on 
work order amounts, the Mayor's Office will balance work order funds to the level of the 
requesting department. 

Updated Forms: 

Department Budget Narrative The Department Budget Narrative should appear first in vour 
budget submissions. Depanments should model their narratives on the Mayor's Budget Book and 
should highlight program objectives and accomplishments, new and innovative programs, and 
performance indicators for the budget year. 

Department Revenue Report Department revenues should continue to be reported by sub-object 
and program. Please note that column headings have changed: Prior year actuals are no longer 
required, and the form is set up to calculate variances. 



Source Mavor's Pohcv Instructions and Controller's Technical Instructions for Budget Year 2002-2003 

49 



Attachment 

Page 3 of 3 

Program Expenditure Report Expenditures should be reported by program and at the object 
level. Character 081 expenditures should be detailed at the sub-object level. All work order 
requests should be explicitly detailed in this category, since specific Work Order Request Forms 
have been discontinued. 

Equipment Request Form Equipment requests should be prioritized by departmental importance 
and should include index codes, for more efficient tracking. Departments should review cost 
estimates for accuracy with their Purchasing Representatives. 

NEW FORMS: 

Budget Reduction Detail and Summary Forms Departments are expected to meet their targets 
in the budget system. In addition, the Mayor's Office has instructed departments to submit 
additional potential reductions. This form should reflect the additional potential reductions. 

Revenue Generation Form Departments which collect revenues directly from the public or other 
users should review their current fee/fine structures to determine whether or not fee/fine increases 
are warranted, given current costs of services provided. Any revenue increases, upon review, 
certification, and approval by the Mayor's and Controller's Offices will be forwarded for the 
consideration of the Board of Supervisors later this fiscal year. 



Source Mayor's Policv Instructions and Controller's Technical Instructions for Budget Year 2002-2003 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 01-1765 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) 

Hearing concerning the impact of changing travel 
patterns and commerce on the economic condition of the 
San Francisco International Airport including the 
International Terminal and the impact on the Airport's 
revenue, expenses and major project plans. 

The Airport reports that their FY 2001-2002 budget totals 
$605,042,692 1 . The Airport is currently projecting a 
revenue shortfall of between $82.5 million and $102.8 
million. The primary components of the revenue shortfall 
are (a) reduced airline landing fees ($15.9 million to $16.7 
million), (b) reduced parking revenues ($30.1 million to 
$36.7 million), and (c) reduced concession revenues ($11.9 
million to $15.1 million). Additionally, anticipated 2001- 
2002 surplus revenues of $17.5 million 2 will not be 
realized according to the Airport's current projections. 
Attachment 1 provides the Airport's summary revenue 
projections for FY 2001-2002. 

The Airport attributes the projected revenue shortfall to 
reduced flight operations (i.e., total flight takeoffs and 
landings) and commensurate reduced passenger 
enplanements since September 11, 2001. Attachment 2 is 
a chart provided by the Airport that compares total flight 
operations by month for January through September of 
calendar vear 2000 and calendar vear 2001. 



As can be seen in Attachment 2, the Airport has 
experienced reduced flight operations each month since 
January of 2001 in comparison to the prior year. For the 
eight-month period between January and August of 2001, 
total flight operations were 4.8 percent less than the same 
period in calendar year 2000. However, total flight 



1 The S605.042.692 is the total budget that the Airport uses for internal budgetary control purposes. 
This differs from the Annual Appropriation Ordinance total of $628,718,981 due to City Budget 
System adjustments according to Mr. Leo Fermin, Finance Director of the Airport. 

2 As shown in Attachment 1. the Airport's FY 2001-2002 budget, as adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors, included an appropriation of "use of surplus revenue" of $17,458,051 as a balancing 
source of funds. However, in FY 2001-2002, the Airport does not expect to realize such surplus 
because of a reduction in landing fee and rental revenues derived from the Airlines. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



operations in September of 2001 were 23.3 percent less 
tban September of 2000. Overall, for the nine-month 
period of January through September of 2001, total flight 
operations were 6.8 percent below the same period for 
calendar year 2000. 

Attachment 3 shows daily figures for flight operations for 
the period of September 3, 2001 through November 28, 
2001. As shown in Attachment 3, for the period of 
September 3 through September 9, 2001, the Airport 
reported an average of 1,189 flight operations per day. For 
September 14 through September 30, 2001, the average 
flight operations per day was 923 or 22.4 percent less 
than the 1,189 flight operations per day just prior to the 
events of September 11, 2002. Since September 30, 2001 
flight operation activity remained at lower levels, 
averaging 957 per day for October 1 though October 31, 
2001 and 941 for November 1 though November 28, 2001. 

Airport revenues also rely heavily on passenger traffic. 
The Airport's FY 2001-2002 budget originally anticipated 
a projected reduction of 2.3 percent in total passenger 
enplanements 3 , from 20,173,692 enplaned passengers in 
FY 2000-2001, to 19,700,000 enplaned passengers in FY 
2001-2002. However, data provided by the Airport shows 
that in September of 2001, total enplaned passengers 
were 37.9 percent less than September of 2000. This trend 
continued through October of 2001, the latest month for 
which this data is available, which had 32.5 percent fewer 
enplaned passengers than October of 2000. Currently, the 
Airport is projecting that, for all of FY 2001-2002, 
enplaned passengers will total 13,900,000 or 29.4 percent 
less than the projection of 19,700,000 in enplaned 
passengers used in the formulation of the Airport's FY 
2001-2002 budget. 

In addition to Airport's projected reduced revenues of 
$82.5 million to $102.8 million, the Airport also reports 
estimated expenditure increases of $1.4 million for (a) 
Airport Police Services ($500,000), (b) increased risk 
insurance premium ($700,000) and (c) other security 
related costs ($200,000) as shown in Attachment 4. This 



3 Passenger enplanements are the total number of passengers boarding airline flights at the airport. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



increased cost of $1.4 million adds to the projected 
reduced revenues of $82.5 million to $102.8 million for a 
total projected revenue shortfall of $83.9 million to $104.2 
million. 

Attachment 5 to this report summarizes the potential 
measures tentatively identified by the Airport to offset 
the total revenue shortfall of $83.9 million to $104.2 
million. Such measures include: 

• Operating Budget Reductions of $32.9 million to $46.0 
million; 

• "Capitalized Interest", whereby the Airport would 
issue short term debt in the form of Commercial Paper 
in order to meet FY 2001-2002 debt service 
requirements and reduce operating expenditures by 
$25.0 million; 

• Additional Passenger Facility Charges 4 which could 
generate $15.8 million in additional revenue for FY 
2001-2002; and, 

• Defunding of Capital Projects and use of related 
accumulated interest earnings of between $5.0 and 
$10.0 million. 

As shown in Attachment 5, if the above identified steps 
are taken, a projected remaining budget deficit of $5.2 
million to $7.4 million would still remain and will need to 
be addressed. 

Lastly, Attachment 6 provides the details of the potential 
Operating Budget Reductions of $32.9 million to $46.0 
million as noted above. As shown in Attachment 6, the 
Airport currently anticipates a reduction of $7.7 million in 
the Airport's Annual Service Payment to the General 
Fund based on projected reduced concession and parking 
revenues. The Controller has previously reported that the 
projected $61.3 to $99.6 million General Fund revenue 
shortfall for FY' 2001-2002 is partly made up of a 
reduction in the Airport's Annual Service Payment of 
between $8.0 million and $9.5 million. 



4 The Airport is currently collecting Passenger Facility Charge of $3.00 per enplaned passenger, as 
approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and has an application pending with the 
FAA for an additional Passenger Facility Charge of $1.50 per enplaned passenger which would result 
in estimated increased revenue during the remainder of FY 2001-2002 of $15.8 million. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 12, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Management representatives of the Airport will be in 
attendance at the December 12, 2001 meeting of the 
Finance Committee to respond to questions. 



'/?■ 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

54 



■-ttachment 1 



^i-^£i3£fi£§i ' X ■'■ 












^A -^ 



c/: — ^- 



— Vi 



s s 

3 S 






— — fc^ 



7wz- 2£>M 



r-^&i--' -^ 



-iK-'glf 






"^ri^"^-- •"-•5 



S - =* s 



OO 



OO 



o 


rn 


— 


or. 






w. 






NO 




— 




V) 


OO 






C»\ 








OO 






a 


NO 

00 


f-* 


w* 


•^ 


1/1 


t^ 





— u 

c § 






55 



Attachment 2 



H 2 




56 



Attachment 3 



O 



< 

fa 

< 

o 



ttt 



696 

£A6 



9U 



££6 



ZL6 



C£6 | 

0*6 | 

CI6 

866 ■■ 
066 B 
866 BB 



€16 | 

106 



L86 | 
0C0I H 
886 | 
*A6 | 
£96 
616 I 






5 1 
3 I 



u 

fa 

fa 

c 

GO 



H 
O 

u 

co s 

^ 1 

u i 

< 

K 
'— 

Z 

< 
CO 



2 



00 



2 

fa 
> 
O 

z 



CO 



£5 © 



m 


t 


— 


©^ 


r^J 


© 


^-^ 


o\ 


^^ 


0> 


*"*■ 




3C 


m 


t*- 


— 


«N 


ITy 


,_7 


ON 


c\ 


II 


II 


II 



o o o 



ax _exi ^M "3) 

fa fa fa j? 

SI SI SI -r 

> > > ?T 

< < < < 



966 | 
S96 



££6 | 

"It, | 

6£6 ■ 

S68 



S66 
8£0I ■ 

:ioi I 



LS6 | 
LZ6 



£86 | 
*96 | 
6*6 
196 I 



£001 ■ 
1001 ■ 

116 | 
8*6 

096 I 



886 | 

£001 ■ 

S96 | 

0S6 

Z96 I 



*t0I 



*Z0I 

**0I | 

S90I ■ 



£101 I 
£86 
886 



9*01 ■ 
*Z0I | 

Z00I 



°! 



i-.ii ma 

mi 

mi ■ 

8SII HillHiillllli 

ko:i 
1611 



fattowaa 



SZ/1I 












AZ/I 1 












9LII 












£2/11 












*Z/Il 












EZ/I I 












ZX/Il 












IZ/II 












ot/u 












61/11 








2 




81/11 












LUU 








12 




91/11 








— 




£1/1 1 








— 




f 1 .' I I 








~ 




31/1 I 








C! 




11,11 










— 




01/11 














6/1 1 














8/1 1 




^~ 










LIU 




o 










9/1 1 




T 










£/Il 




-. 










WII 




3 










E/II 




= 










3/11 




- 










I/I! 




5 










I £701 














0£/0I 




— 










83/01 




- 










£3/01 




= 










9C/0I 




I 










SZ/0I 














*3/0I 














33/01 














13/01 




2 










03/01 


>* 


9 










61/01 


— 


= 










81/01 


•e 


— 










£1/01 




* 










H/OI 


a 













£1/01 


«S 


■a 










31/01 


« 


— 










I I/O! 


4 


■5 










6/01 




- 










8/01 




I 










A/01 






,^ 








9/01 






s 








£/01 




ST 










WO I 




OS 


j. 








DO I 






- 






4-1 


3/01 




Sf 


"K - 






>-l 


1/01 




■2 


£ 


« 




D. 






h 


" 


>■ 




U 


0E76 
63/6 




O 


5 


< 




■r-t 
< 


83/6 




x 


a 






LV6 




— 


- 


»«S 




1— 1 

CO 

c 


91/6 







■5 


CJ 




£1/6 






— 


u 




O 


*3/6 




E 


■ 


s 




•r-t 


£3/6 






— 




4-1 


zx/6 

13/6 






u 




CO 

c 
i-l 


03/6 










0) 


61/6 






- 




4J 


SI/6 






■a 




c 


L\I6 






.!£ 




1— 1 


91/6 






= 






£1/6 






5 




t-. 


*l/6 






U 






£1/6 






— 




00 


ri/6 






c 

a. 






11/6 






< 






6/6 







u 


T 


a 


8/6 










Vj 

3 


U6 








£ 


£/6 








A 


O 


*/6 










CO 


C/6 








re 








57 



Attachment 4 






< 



Z rr 






>-i ^ <=> :■■?? ^ 

^ 7 --.•:•:: 'X ■■*■ 

<** — *""* 2 s - z 

1 I ° g § 






< m 



o 
U 



o 

u 

"3 






58 



Attachment 5 






.»X: 



T 


■ <> 




V! 


rvf 


■ *■* 


"O 


£3 


7~^ 


£J 




.— 


J— 


- Ti- 


*■**! 


= 


Y 


:':'::■--<' 


j; 


=■ 




ZL 


,~ 





'Jl 



r4 ~ 



2: o g 



(-S) _ 



&o fe» bo 



(N — 



"5 

eS 



s 


o 


3 


Cfl 


t« 


es 






o 


e 


*^ 


.a 


es 


3 




C/D 



4, ._, 



— es 



4> c£ 



.2 " 
O ? 



— <u 



C2 _ 



o ~ 






C£ - 



3 O 



tr «■> 



a- Q fc. 



59 



Attachment 6 

















































5 


Ss 


„ 


c 


u 




























- 


r~ 


u5 


u 


CO 




























o 







































03 


^ 


u 


| 








o 






Ul 


















u 












o 




















o 


BO 


































S 




o 










>- 




















■55 




o 


re 


2 






-^ 


£. 






U 






Z 






2 

a 

a 


o 
5 


c 


c 

Q 

0- 

c/o 


5 

o 
T3 
U 

■a 


5 

u 
>. 

■a 


u 

re 
u 






SO 

■5 


> 

•a 


c 
o 


U 

5 






"'§. 








re 


T3 

B 


o 


B 

E 
o 


E 


re 


00 


<u 


o 

o 


u 


5 


5 




~~s 










u 




■5 


u 


c 


T3 


5 


o_ 






t 

'S 1 






— 








u 


a 
-o 


re 


u 


E 


u 


Q. 


u 


o" 

o 


5- 
u 

S 


E 














N 




o 




>, 









C\ 








.—. 


= 




'en 




1 


as 

B 


c 


£ 




g 


-a 


CO 


fee 


«F<i 


D. 




-< 


>■* 




;x 




eo 


aj 


1 

3 


"Sh 




5 


— 


> 

o 

Z 


-a 
> 
a 


N 


> 
o 


-a 
u 




< 


5 




'•! g; '■>'■; 




E 


o 


< 


£ 


re 


< 


Ci 


C- 


£ 




CQ 




::-Z. 






































^* 




' ~+l '■■. :• 




o 






o 




— 


o 




o 


in 


r~ 


r* 


o 


T^ 


X 


^ 


*£* : 


"si 

=3 


c< 






o 




o 


CN 


1 


CN 


■""" 


rn 


r~ 


so 


Z 


:3 


P-* 


rr*-. <«• 


&o 






&^ 




«/» 


&> 


fee 


feO 


feO 


&o 


&e 


«« 


j£ 


z 


<M 


£T 5 






























a 


r~ 








o 










o 


o 




O 


u-i 


r^ 


r^ 


ON 


?■* 


^j 


^ 


■<?.' ; E- 


a 


d\ 






, " 




od 


— 


i 


CN 


_ ; 


rn 


r^ 


r-i 


z 


j-£ 


V 


r~t " w 


j 


























m 




































^ 


ii2 


3 




v* 






6«J 




OO 


fee 


fee 


&«» 


&^ 


&O 


&^ 


V* 


jf* 


i. 




^ 






























I/I 


/•* 




(N 


























■g 










>■« 


























E 
>> 




*jr 






-< 


<; 


V] 




_o 


K? 


>>; 






























CI 




O 




































u 


u 


Z 


t_ 






























u 

CI 

CO 

C5 


3 


< 


i/3 






























o 


-n 


«S 


































•o 






























CI 




























u 


























V) 




U 


_o 






^ 


5 


a 


























Cl 




CI 










C5 








*N 














u 




> 


s 




S 






< 


? 




>" 














ci 




— 


c/5 




■r 




6 


c 


~ 


















W 




=3 


"5 




■z 




a 


_c 


C3 
























C5 












e 


















= 




u 




CI 


*£ 


u 


=- 


u 


t— 












o 






u 




— 


« 


j: 


u 




CJ 


u 














"C 






— 




-— 


ej 


■^ 


~ 


.9- 


z: 


Si 


















































c/5 






o 
U 




it 


*z 




u 


Ed 


c/5 


3 











60 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell 



Clerk: Gail . Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, December 19, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:19 a.m. 

012159 [San Francisco Water Alliance] 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing to consider the progress of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's contract revisions with the 

San Francisco Water Alliance. 

1 2/3/0 1 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Supervisor Leno requests that this item be referred to the Finance 

Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Patricia Martel, General Manager, Public Utilities Commission; Leslie 
Abbott, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3: 1 2 PM on 3 3 04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes December 19, 2001 



012190 [2002 SFUSD General Obligation Bond Sale] 

Supervisors Ammiano, Peskin, McGoldrick, Leno, Maxwell, Newsom 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed 529,480,000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facilities Bonds, 1997 - San Francisco Unified School District), Series 
2002_; prescribing the form and terms of said Bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration 
of said Bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said Bonds; providing for the 
establishment of accounts related thereto; approving the forms of Official Notice of Sale and Notice of 
Intention to Sell Bonds; directing the publication of the Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; approving the form 
and execution of the official statement relating thereto; approving the form and execution of the Continuing 
Disclosure Certificate; approving modifications to documents; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and 
granting general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization, 
issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. 
12/10/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Brad Benson, Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Ammiano; Theodore Lakey, 

Deputy City Attorney; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony Irons; Susan Leal, Treasurer; Supervisor Yee; 

Monique Moyer, Mayor's Office of Public Finance; Terence Abad, Chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee to 

San Francisco Unified School District for School Bonds; Nancy Wuerfel, Parkside for Dids Group; Dana 

Woldow (regarding Aptos Middle School); Caroline Grannan, 2nd District Parent Teacher Association; 

Roger Bazeley, Eileen Bogan, Sunset Parkside Education Action Committee; Dan Ryan, School of the Arts 

Task Force. 

Amendment of the Whole bearing same title adopted. Amended. New Amendment of the Whole prepared in 

Committee. 

(Supervisor Maxwell added as co-sponsor) 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012185 [SFUSD not provide information regarding 2002 Bond funds] 
Supervisors Ammiano, McGoldrick, Leno, Maxwell 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 10.19-4 to require specified 

City departments to notify the Board of Supervisors if the San Francisco Unified School District does not meet 

with or otherwise provide information about the 2002 bond proceeds, as agreed. 

12/10/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Brad Benson, Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Ammiano; Theodore Lakey. 

Deputy City Attorney; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony Irons; Susan Leal. Treasurer; Supervisor Yee; 

Monique Moyer, Mayor's Office of Public Finance; Terence Abad, Chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee to 

San Francisco Unified School District for School Bonds; Nancy Wuerfel, Parkside for Dids Group; Dana 

Woldow (regarding Aptos Middle School); Caroline Grannan, 2nd District Parent Teacher Association; 

Roger Bazeley, Eileen Bogan, Sunset Parkside Education Action Committee; Dan Ryan, School of the Arts 

Task Force. 

Amendment of the Whole bearing same title adopted. Amended. New Amendment of the Whole prepared in 

Committee. 

(Supervisor Maxwell added as co-sponsor) 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:12 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 19, 2001 



Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 10.19-4 to require specified 
City departments to notify the Board of Supervisors if the San Francisco Unified School District does not 
provide quarterly written reports to the City on the status of the use of the 2002 school bond proceeds, as 
required, and to require the School District to provide the City with a written timeline and expenditure plans for 
each of the projects to be funded with 2002 bond funds prior to the appropriation of the bond funds in order to 
determine whether the appropriations of these bond funds are necessary and/ or appropriate. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012028 [Reserved Funds, Department of the Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of the Environment (fiscal year 2001-2002 budget), 
in the amount of $15,000 for technical assistance on developing a Climate Change Action Plan for San 
Francisco. (Environment) 

12/4/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Mark Weston, Environment Department. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $15,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012180 [Extending Cooperative Agreement between the Treasure Island Development Authority and the U.S. 

Navy] 

Resolution approving and authorizing the Treasure Island Development Authority to enter into the 1 1th 
modification to the Cooperative Agreement with the Navy to extend the Cooperative Agreement to June 30, 
2002 for an additional amount of Navy reimbursement not to exceed $145,000. (Mayor) 
12/5/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Stephen Proud, Deputy Director, Treasure 
Island Development Authority. 
Amended as follows: 

On page 1, lines 5 and 7, and page 2, line 10, by replacing "June" with "September; " 
On page J, line 8, after "$145,000, " and on page 3, line 5, after "resolution, " by adding "retroactive to 
October 1,2001;" 

On page 1, line 8, by replacing "not to exceed" with "of" 

On page 1, line 5, and on page 2, lines 11, 12, 13, 21, 22 and 25, by replacing "llth"with "Nth." 
AMENDED. 

Resolution approving and authorizing the Treasure Island Development Authority to enter into the 14th 
modification to the Cooperative Agreement with the Navy to extend the Cooperative Agreement to September 
30, 2002 for an additional amount of Navy reimbursement not to exceed $145,000, retroactive to October 1, 
2001. (Mayor) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:12 PM on 33/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes December 19, 2001 



012183 [Reserved Funds. Treasure Island Project] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Treasure Island Project (fiscal year 2001-2002 budget), in the 
amount of 5406,290 to fund the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP) for special 
assistants. (Mayor) 

12/4/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the 
December 12, 2001 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Stephen Proud, Deputy Director, Treasure 
Island Development Authority. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $67,715 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 1:11 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 3:12 PM 



0-05 

CITY AND COUNTY !|W|| ?MJs) OF SAN FRANCISCO 



lrf/o 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
/ 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 

December 13, 2001 

TO: ..Finance Committee 

FROM: .Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 2 and 3 - Files 01-2190 and 01-2185 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Departments: Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

San Francisco Unified School District 

Items: Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to 

exceed $29,480,000 of City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facilities Bonds 
1997 - San Francisco Unified School District), Series 
2002; prescribing the form and terms of said bonds; 
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration 
of said bonds; providing for the appointment of 
depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for 
the establishment of accounts; approving the forms of 
Official Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to Sell 
Bonds; directing the publication of the Notice of Intention 
to Sell Bonds; approving the form and execution of the 
Official Statement relating thereto; approving the form of 
the Continuing Disclosure Certificate; approving 
modifications to the documents; ratifying certain actions 
previously taken; and granting general authority to City 
officials to take necessary actions in connection with the 
authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds 
(File 01-2190). 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 
Code by adding Section 10.19-4 to require specified City 
departments to notify the Board of Supervisors if the San 
Francisco Unified School District does not meet with or 
otherwise provide information about the 2002 bond 
proceeds (File 01-2185). 

Amount: $29,480,000 

Description: On June 3, 1997, San Francisco voters approved 

Proposition A, a $140,000,000 General Obligation Bond 
measure (1997 Educational Facilities Bonds) of which 
$90,000,000 was designated to provide funds for capital 
improvement projects for the San Francisco Unified 
School District. On November 10, 1997 the Board of 
Supervisors authorized the issuance of these bonds and on 
June 29, 1999, the City sold $60,520,000 of these General 
Obligation Bonds (the Series 1999B Bonds). The proposed 
resolution (File 01-2190) would authorize and direct the 
sale of the remaining $29,480,000 of these General 
Obligation Bonds (Series 2002). 

The proposed ordinance (File 01-2185) would amend the 
City's Administrative Code to require the Facilities and 
Planning Department of the San Francisco Unified School 
District (School District) to meet with or provide 
information to the Budget Analyst's Office, the City's 
Public Finance Office, the Department of Public Works 
and the Controller's Office on a monthly basis in order to 
update these City departments and offices regarding the 
status of the use of the 2002 bond proceeds. If the School 
District does not meet with or provide such information to 
these four City departments and offices, these 
departments are required to notify the Board of 
Supervisors (See Comment No. 9). 

The general provisions in the subject resolution regarding 
the sale of the subject $29,480,000 bonds are as follows: 

• The bonds would be sold at an interest rate not to 
exceed 12 percent per year and would have a final 
maturity of no later than June 15, 2027. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



• The Official Statement describing the proposed bonds 
would be available to all potential bidders for the 
bonds. 

• The bonds would be awarded, through a competitive 
bid solicitation, to the bidder offering the lowest total 
interest cost to the City. 

• The City Treasurer would establish a special Project 
Account for the subject General Obligation Bonds, 
Series 2002, separate and apart from all other City 
accounts. All interest earned on the deposits in this 
Project Account would be retained in the Project 
Account to be expended for the acquisition, 
construction and reconstruction of the School District's 
educational facilities. 

• The City Treasurer is authorized to pay the costs of 
issuance associated with the bonds, from the proceeds 
of the sale of the bonds. The costs of bond issuance 
include printing, mailing and publication expenses, 
rating agency fees, agents, registrars, financial 
consultants and bond counsel fees and reimbursement 
of City departmental expenses in connection with the 
issuance. 

• States the City's official intent to reimburse prior 
expenditures advanced by the School District which 
were incurred prior to the issuance and sale of the 
subject Bonds in connection with the projects to be 
financed by these Bonds. 

• The proposed Series 2002 Bonds would be subject to 
the City's General Obligation Bond Accountability 
Reports (Article VIII of Chapter 2 of the City's 
Administrative Code). These provisions require that 
those government entities which are not part of the 
City (such as the School District), report detailed 
project descriptions, status of projects, specified bond 
proceeds and expenditures by project, and cumulative 
expenditures to the Treasurer, Controller, Clerk of the 
Board, Budget Analyst and Director of Public Finance 
prior to the appropriation of the Bond proceeds (See 
Comment No. 7). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

As detailed in the December of 2001, Quarterly Report on 
the 1997 Proposition A Bond Funds, provided by Mr. Tony 
Irons of the San Francisco Unified School District, the 
proposed $29,480,000 School District Series 2002 Bonds 
would be used to provide 57 technology/electrical 
upgrades, 13 science laboratory upgrades, two new school 
buildings, one seismic upgrade, one children's center, 
major additions to Lowell High School and a new Dianne 
Feinstein (Parkside) Elementary School. Attachment I, 
which is included in the December of 2001 Quarterly 
Report, lists these 78 projects at 68 different schools (See 
Comment No. 10). This Quarterly Report also identifies 
the 114 School District projects which are either 
completed or in various stages of design and/or 
construction that were funded with the original 
$60,520,000 Series 1999B School District Bond funds, of 
the total $90,000,000 Proposition A Bond funds. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Karen Ribble of the Mayor's Office of 

Public Finance, based on current market conditions, the 
subject bonds are anticipated to be sold at an overall 
interest rate of 5.12 percent, with principal and interest 
to be paid back over a period of 20 years. Ms. Ribble 
advises that the sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled 
for the Spring of 2002. Under these conditions, it is 
estimated that the proposed $29,480,000 bond sale would 
result in a total debt service (from December of 2002 
through June of 2022) of $48,370,145 including the 
principal amount of $29,480,000 and interest payments of 
$18,890,145, with an estimated average annual debt 
service over the estimated 20-year life of the bonds of 
$2,408,000. 

2. According to Ms. Maureen Gannon of the Controller's 
Office, the proposed $29,480,000 Series 2002 School 
District Bonds would result in an increase in the Property 
Tax Rate of approximately $.0027 per $100 of assessed 
value. At that rate, the owner of a single-family residence 
assessed at $400,000 would pay approximately $10.61 in 
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of 
these bonds. 

3. Ms. Ribble states that the costs of selling $29,480,000 
Series 2002 School District Bonds, including the fees for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



outside bond counsel, financial advisors, printing, 
advertising, rating fees, services of the Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance, the Treasurer's Office, the Controller's 
Office, and the City Attorney's Office and a contingency 
are estimated to be approximately $200,000, or 0.7 
percent of the total value of the bonds issued in the 
amount of $29,480,000. Attachment II provided by the 
Mayor's Office of Public Finance details these bond 
issuance costs. 

4. The City's General Obligation Bond debt capacity is 
limited to three percent of the City's net assessed property 
value. According to Ms. Ribble, the City's total General 
Obligation debt capacity is currently $2,617,870,061 or 
three percent of the estimated net assessed property value 
of $87,262,335,367 for FY 2001-2002. 

As of December 1, 2001, the City had $974,400,000 in 
outstanding General Obligation Bond Debt. The proposed 
resolution (File 01-2190) authorizes the sale of an 
additional $29,480,000 in General Obligation Bonds to 
finance capital improvements for the School District. If 
the proposed resolution is approved, the City will have 
$1,003,880,000 in General Obligation Bond Debt 
outstanding and $1,613,990,061 in General Obligation 
bonding capacity remaining. The City's bonding capacity 
varies from time to time as a result of paying off 
previously issued bonds, issuance of new bonds and 
changes in the City's assessed valuation. 

5. The proposed resolution (File 01-2190) includes three 
unspecified dates regarding the subject Bonds maturity 
for allowing optional redemption of the Bonds. Ms. Ribble 
advises that the City Attorney's Office will be preparing 
an Amendment of the Whole, to be introduced at the 
December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting, to 
identify these specific dates for allowing optional 
redemption of the Bonds. 

6. Mr. Ed Harrington, the City's Controller advises that 
the Bond proceeds from the sale of the proposed 
$29,480,000 General Obligation Bond funds would be 
subject to separate appropriation approval by the Board of 

Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



7. The City's Administrative Code now requires that prior 
to the appropriation of the $29,480,000 in Series 2002 
School District Bond proceeds, the School District must 
provide a Bond Accountability Report to the Treasurer, 
Controller, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Budget 
Analyst and the Director of Public Finance that provides 
details on the status of past and proposed expenditures 
with the Bond funds. As noted above, the proposed 
resolution reiterates this Administrative Code 
requirement for the School District. Ms. Teresa Alvarez of 
the City Attorney's Office advises that the School District 
Quarterly Report issued in December of 2001 is intended 
to meet the requirements of the Administrative Code 
regarding the Bond Accountability Report. 

8. The Budget Analyst notes that, prior to the Quarterly 
Report on the 1997 Proposition A Bond Funds that was 
just issued by the School District on December 7, 2001, 
the last Proposition A Quarterly Report was issued by the 
School District in April of 2000, or approximately 20 
months ago. While the distribution of these Quarterly 
Reports is not specified by law, in 1999, the Finance 
Committee of the Board of Supervisors requested, and the 
School District did not disagree to provide such Quarterly 
Reports to the Budget Analyst, the Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance and the Controller's Office. However, as 
noted, the School District failed to provide such Quarterly 
Reports to City departments and offices between April of 
2000 and December of 2001. 

9. The proposed ordinance (File 01-2185) would amend 
the City's Administrative Code to require School District 
representatives to meet with or provide information 
monthly to the Budget Analyst's Office, City's Public 
Finance Office, Department of Public Works and the 
Controller's Office regarding the status of the use of the 
2002 Bond proceeds. If the School District does not meet 
with or provide such information, these City departments 
and offices are required to notify the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The Budget Analyst believes that this ordinance could be 
strengthened with respect as to whether the School 
District would meet with or provide oral or written 
documentation on the status of the expenditure of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Bond proceeds. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the proposed ordinance be clarified to 
specifically require written documentation on the status 
of each Bond project and the expenditure of the Bond 
proceeds for each project. In addition, given the length of 
time that is required to undertake and complete capital 
improvement projects, quarterly reporting, as was 
previously requested but not required, rather than 
monthly reporting, may be sufficient. The Budget Analyst 
therefore recommends that the proposed ordinance be 
amended to require that the School District provide 
written Quarterly Reports to the specified City 
departments and offices. 

Furthermore, the Budget Analyst notes that the Board of 
Supervisors control over the School District's funding lies 
in the appropriation of the Bond proceeds. Once the Board 
of Supervisors appropriates all of the Bond funds to the 
School District, whether or not School District 
representatives meet with or provide information to 
designated City representatives, the Board of Supervisors 
would only be able to hold public hearings on the 
information provided, and, would not be able to withhold, 
reallocate or change any such appropriations, without 
rescinding the previous appropriations. Therefore, 
although it is not part of the subject resolution to 
authorize the sale of the Bonds or the subject ordinance, 
to require oversight of the School District expenditures, 
the Budget Analyst recommends that at the time that the 
School District requests appropriation of the subject 
$29,480,000 Bond proceeds, the School District provide 
detailed timeline and expenditure plans for each of the 
projects to be funded, such that the Budget Analyst could 
identify the specific funding needs for the School District 
on a quarterly basis. The Board of Supervisors could then 
review the School District's timelines and expenditure 
data to determine if it is necessary to appropriate all of 
the subject $29,480,000 Bond proceeds at one time. 

10. As shown on the last page of Attachment I, of the 
$29,480,000 proposed 2002 Bond issuance, which was the 
original budgeted amount provided in a 1997 report to the 
Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC), and is 
the subject of the proposed resolution (File 01-2190), the 
School District has now budgeted $25,812,999 for these 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



same projects, or an estimated $3,667,001 less than was 
originally budgeted. Mr. Irons advises that all of the 
projects listed in Attachment I, to be paid with the subject 
Bond funds are the same as the projects identified in the 
original 1997 CIAC report. According to Mr. Irons, the 
$3,667,001 surplus in the budgeted costs is due to more 
precise estimates of the actual scope of work for each of 
the projects than was able to be done in 1997. Mr. Irons 
advises that if any surplus remains after all of the 
proposed 2002 Bonds projects are completed, the Board of 
Education will determine the allocation of these funds to 
specific projects in the School District. 

In addition, Mr. Irons notes that the estimated interest 
earnings of $733,426 from the initial 1999 Bond projects 
that is included in the Quarterly Report may be 
underestimated. As of the writing of this report, Mr. Irons 
was reviewing these interest earnings estimates to 
determine the correct amounts. Mr. Irons advises that 
any additional interest earnings resulting from the 
previous and proposed Bond proceeds would need to be 
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors and would be 
added to any surplus remaining funds, to be allocated by 
the Board of Education. 

11. According to Mr. Irons, in order to complete the 
identified projects with the proposed $29,480,000 of 2002 
Bond funds, the School District must secure an estimated 
$19,010,354 of State of California Leroy Greene 
Modernization Program matching funds. As shown in 
Attachment III, the $19,010,354 of State matching funds 
would be used for six specific School District projects, 
including over $10 million of State matching funds for the 
completion of the Lowell High School renovation project. 
Mr. Irons advises that the State has already approved the 
matching funds for these six School District projects. 

However, Mr. Irons reports that the State's approval for 
these six projects will expire on January 5, 2002, unless 
the School District enters into binding construction 
contract agreements for each of these six projects. 
According to Mr. Irons, the Board of Education has 
scheduled a Special Meeting for January 3, 2001 to 
authorize the approval of these six projects, which would 
enable the School District to expedite the process to enter 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



DEC-14-2001 09:46 HARUEY M ROSE flCC CORP 415 252 0461 P. 02 

Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

into binding construction contract agreements for each of 
these projects prior to the January 5, 2002 deadline. The 
Budget Analyst notes however, that as shown in 
Attachment III, these six School District projects are 
dependent upon an estimated $5,250,683 of the subject 
2002 Bond funds, which have not yet been authorized to 
be sold or appropriated for their use by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The earliest that the Board of Supervisors will be able to 
meet to consider the proposed resolution and ordinance 
would be January 7, 2001, which is after the deadline for 
the State to award the matching funds. As previously 
noted, the proposed 2002 Bonds are anticipated to be sold 
during the Spring of 2002. According to Mr. Irons, since 
these items would not be heard by the Board of 
Supervisors prior to the Board of Education's action on 
January 3, 2001, in order for the Board of Education to 
approve the six School District projects on January 3, 
2001, the Board of Education will need some "level of 
confidence" from the Finance Committee that the subject 
$29,480,000 of bonds will be sold, and subsequently 
appropriated. Alternatively, Mr. Irons reports that the 
School District would have to commit School District 
General Fund and other revenues, to pay for any 
differences in project costs. 

The proposed resolution (File 01-2190) provides that the 
School District expects to advance its own funds to pay 
certain expenditures in connection with the projects to be 
financed by the subject bonds prior to the issuance and 
sale of the Bonds, and that the City intends to reimburse 
the School District for such prior expenditures from the 
proceeds of these Bonds. 

Recommendations: 1, In accordance with Comment No. 5, approve the 
proposed Amendment of the Whole to the proposed 
resolution (File 01-2190) to identify the specific 
maturity dates for allowing optional redemption of 
the subject Bonds. 

2. In accordance with Comment No. 9, amend the 
proposed ordinance (File 01-2185) to require that the 
School District submit written quarterly reports to 
the Budget Analyst, City's Public Finance Office, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



totoi o ra-> 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Department of Public Works and the Controller's 
Office, instead of the current requirement to meet 
with or provide information to these City 
departments and offices on a monthly basis. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution and ordinance, as 
amended. 

4. In accordance with Comment No. 9, although it is 
not part of the subject resolution (File 01-2190) to 
authorize the sale of the Bonds or the subject 
ordinance (File 01-2185), to require oversight of the 
School District expenditures, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that, at the time that the School 
District requests appropriation of the subject 
$29,480,000 Bond proceeds, the School District 
provide detailed timeline and expenditure plans for 
each of the projects to be funded, such that the 
Budget Analyst can identify the specific funding 
needs for the School District on a quarterly basis. 
The Board of Supervisors could then review the 
School District's timelines and expenditure data to 
determine if it is necessary to appropriate all of the 
subject $29,480,000 Bond proceeds at one time. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



3. S 1 C Q. 

o a 6 c 



Attachment I 
Page i ot d 



u o o o 



2 D 5 

O en < 



HI 




U 




z: 




< 




ZJ 




CD 




CO 








n 


en 


2 


n 


O 


n 


CD 




CM 


o 


O 




O 


o 


CM 


p. 


Q 




HI 




CO 




o 




0. 




o 




(X 




c 





£ C 



•S c 



in ►- 



! 5 'i s 5 

o | | | 3 o 

z 5 oiO'S" o 



w 



1/1 



Si V) '/> </> 



s £ £ 

_3 T T 



Attachment: I 
fage 2 of 8 



■3 -d 



=> c o c 






C < J < 

C — if) — 

v 2 s 2 



o < ; < 

| c | 5 



:/! ul 



0) 2 < 



12 



Attachment I 
Pase 3 of 8 



< 3 2 

U3< 



S S J 

< < < 

S 1 1 

- z2 r 



COO o 



i I ■= O 



Jj a " <c 



13 




» = 3 

£ = a 



- u m < 



■= o 



5 O 



2 5 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 8 






(/) S V) - 



^ r 



— = © 

O iS 2! 



< LU = 



SS 



Attachment I 
Page 5 of b 



3 < I < 
i o Sp 



o < 



1 S 



Attachment I 
Page 6 of 8 



o u 



I 



i 



O 3 O 3 ° I c ^ O 3 c ° I c oc 



g < => 2 

- o tn < 



2 f 

2 O 



S < 

I. 5 



I 5 



€ ° 



_ - 
£ 2 



16 



"3c 

S D 2 

U a < 



Attachment I 
Page / or 8 



c I c 



O c CO 



o o o o 



2 < 

■= 5 



= 2 15 
50 2 o 

J? 3 ^ a 



B 2 



•? c 

± CD 



I 17 



Attachment I 
^a ? e B of 8 



"So 

^ D 5 

u a < 



O Q 



- UJ 

! m 

• 5 

-, uj 

: o 

I UJ 

: a 



DEC-: 2-1901 i6 - -47 OFFICE OF PUBLIC FINANCE i41553-:4S64 

Attachment II 



Estimated Cosl of Issuance Breakdown 

Bona Counsel Fees 35,000.00 

Financial Advisor Fees 35,750.00 

City Stat 60,000.00 

POS/OS Printing 14,000.00 

Rating Fees ' 25,750.00 

Advertising (Bond Buyer and other) 3,000.00 

Contingency 26,500.00 

200,000.00 

' Moody's, S2.P and Fitch 



19 



Attachment III 



S3-50 - State Grant Protects 



Protect 4: I Site: 


Budaet: 


Bid Date- 


Board: |OPSC. 








J 


10240 


Aptos Micale 
Luster 
Baker Viiiar 


State: S2.33S.337.00 
Dist: S534.S34.00 

Total: S2.S24.i7i.00 


12/18/01 


Dec. 01 


1/4/02 


10166 


Hii;cresT E;ementary 

Esrrella 

Cervantes 


State: Si .718,774.00 
Dist: S429.694.00 

Total: S2, 148, 468. 00 


12/5/01 


Dec. 01 


1 /i/02 


10181 


BurbanK Middie 

Chapa 

Cervantes 


State: S2. 302. 379 9S 
Dist: S575.595.00 

Total: S2. 877,574. 00 


12/11/01 


Dec. 01 


1/4/02 


220 


Sanchez Elementary 

Chapa 

Eaker Viiiar 


State: S1.417.194.O0 

Dist: S354,298.00 

Total: S1, 771, 492. 00 


12/18/01 


Dec. 01 


1 /4/02 


"0249|De Aviha Elementary 
Estrella 
peseno 


State: S1.123.S46.00 
Dist: S280.986.00 

Total: Si, 404. 932. 00 


12/11/01 


Dec. 01 


1/4/02 


'. 590|lowell High 
Lusler 
IED2 International 


State: Si 0,108.724.00 
DiSt: S3. 025. 275. 00 

Total: $13,134,000 00 


Bid 


Dec 01 


1 /4/02 


(Totals: 




State: S19,010,3S4.00 
Dist: 55,250,683.00 
Total: S24.261.037.00 







20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4- File 01-2028 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of the Environment (DOE) 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $15,000 to be used by the Department of the 
Environment for technical assistance on developing a 
Climate Change Action Plan for the City 

$15,000 

Public Utilities Commission funds work-ordered to the 
Department of the Environment, appropriated and 
reserved by the Board of Supervisors in the Department 
of the Environment's Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget. 

The Board of Supervisors appropriated and placed on 
reserve $119,300 in the FY 2001-2002 budget of the DOE. 
The funds are for professional services to conduct energy 
projects, and were reserved pending submission to the 
Finance Committee of a) a specific description of the 
energy projects, b) selection of consultants to assist the 
DOE with energy planning, (c) the consultant's estimated 
hours and hourly rates, and (d) any other budget details. 
According to Mr. Mark Westlund of the DOE, the 
$119,300 in reserved funds were workordered from the 
PUC to the DOE m the FY 2001-2002 budget due to the 
DOE's expertise in providing energy conservation services 
for the City. Mr. Westlund reports that the $119,300 
would be used to develop efficient uses of energy for 
environmental health, such as the optimal combination of 
solar, wind, and conventional power, and the amount of 
energy to be generated within the City boundaries to meet 
consumer demand. 

Under the proposed request for release of the $15,000 in 
reserved funds, the subject funds would be used by the 
PUC, on behalf of the DOE, to fund professional services 
by a PUC consultant, Brown, Yence & Associates (BV&A) 
to complete the Climate Change Action Plan. BV&A 
specializes in energy and climate analysis. According to 
Mr. Fred Weiner of the PUC, the PUC's recently amended 
existing contract with BV&A includes the development of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



a Climate Change Action Plan for San Francisco, also 
known as the Local Action Plan according to Mr. Weiner. 
BV&A was selected through a competitive Request for 
Proposal process. Mr. Westlund states that the Climate 
Change Action Plan is a step-by-step guide to reduce the 
City's overall contribution to global warming, and consists 
of the following five major components concerning 
greenhouse gas emissions: (1) creating an emissions 
inventory, (2) developing an emissions forecast, (3) setting 
emissions reduction targets, (4) devising measures to 
reduce emissions, and (5) creating an implementation 
plan to tarry out the measures. According to Mr. 
Westlund, since power plants and other conventional 
sources of electricity are the significant producers of 
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global 
warming, a Climate Change Action Plan would assist the 
City in identifying the appropriate combination of 
alternative sources of energy, such as solar or wind, to 
maximize environmental health, through various 
analyses of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. Westlund reports that work on the Climate Change 
Action Plan was first initiated in 1998 by the PUC, and is 
currently 80 percent completed. To date, the PUC has 
expended approximately $40,000 in PUC staff hours, as 
appropriated in the annual budget, on the Climate 
Change Action Plan as detailed in Attachment I provided 
by Mr. Westlund. According to Mr. Westlund, the Climate 
Change Action Plan project was transferred from the PUC 
to the DOE for completion, but the PUC will contribute 
approximately 480 hours of staff time to the project 
during FY 2001-2002 at an estimated cost of $19,200, as 
shown in Attachment I. Mr. Westlund states that the 
project would be completed at a total cost of $60,700, as 
shown on Attachment I, including the subject requested 
release of $15,000 in reserved funds. Approval of this 
release of reserve of $15,000 would leave $104,300 
remaining on reserve ($119,300 less $15,000). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



A summary budget for the requested $15,000 workorder 
from the DOE to the PUC for work to be done by the 
consultant BV&A is as follows: 



Consultant Task 


Hours 


Cost/Hr. 


Total 


Update calculations for baseline years' emissions 
inventory 


20 


$120 


$2,400 


Update forecast figures with current data 


20 


120 


2,400 


Quantify reduction target scenarios 


20 


120 


2,400 


Complete measures descriptions and estimates 


45 


120 


5,400 


Provide review and support on implementation 
plan 


20 


120 


2,400 


Total 


125 




$15,000 



Comments: 



1. Attachment II provided by Mr. Westlund, contains the 
details of the consultant tasks. 



2. Mr. Westlund reports that the consultant services 
would be provided by BV&A as a result of BV&A's 
specialization in energy and climate analysis. According 
to Mr. Weiner, as previously noted, BV&A was selected by 
the PUC through a competitive Request for Proposal 
(RFP) process to provide technical assistance including 
energy and climate analysis for energy and environmental 
projects under a three year contract between January 1, 
2001 and December 31, 2003, at a cost of $706,000. 

The proposed consulting services to be provided by BV&A 
is estimated to require approximately 125 hours at $120 
per hour, for a total cost of $15,000, as shown in the table 
above. According to Mr. Westlund, BV&A would complete 
its consultant tasks by May 30, 2002. 

3. Attachment I provided by Mr. Westlund contains a 
total budget of $60,700 for the Climate Change Action 
Plan project including this subject request of $15,000. 

4. According to Mr. Westlund, DOE will submit a separate 
request to the Finance Committee in January of 2002 for 
the balance of the $104,300 ($119,300 less $15,000) 
remaining on reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

5. Attachment III is a memo from Mr. Westlund stating 
that the DOE has not yet incurred any obligations 
regarding the proposed expenditure of $15,000. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of reserved funds in the 

amount of $15,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 1 

Following are costs to date, and projected costs to the City to complete the Local Plan. Please note 
that staff costs are paid by PUC because PUC has assigned one employee to SF Environment to work on 
climate and energy-related issues that both departments have identified as necessary. 

FY 1998-99 through FY 1999-2000 Approx 1,000 PUC staff ho urs/S40 540,000 

FY 2001-02 480 PUC staff hours/S40 per hour 19,200 

FY 2001-02 Consultant services 15.000 

TOTAL $60,700 






Source: Department of the Environment 




Attachment II 
Page 1 of 1 



SF Environment 




WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

JARED BLUMENFELD 
Director 



The consultant services can be broken down as follows: 

Update calculations for baseline inventory 

The first step to reducing overall emissions is to determine their sources, and to estimate the amount of 
emissions associated with each source. The plan will include an analysis or inventory of local greenhouse 
gas emissions produced by the City's own operations, as well as by the commercial and residential 
sectors. This inventory provides a baseline by which to compare progress. 



Forcast figures with current data 

The second step is to develop a "business as usual" forecast of future emissions. This shows where we 
are going and the costs associated with doing nothing, emphasizing the need for action. 

— more -- 
Quantify reduction target scenarios 

The third step is to set a reduction target. Various countries and cities have set different targets (usually 
expressed as a percentage reduction from 1990 levels - based on the U.N. /Kyoto protocols). This sets a 
clear goal for the City to aim for. 

Complete measures descriptions and estimates 

The Plan devises and quantifies specific measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Fossil fuel consumption caused by the generation and use of electricity is a primary source of greenhouse 
gas emissions. Reductions here will be accomplished through energy efficiency measures in buildings 
including improved design and specification of efficient electric equipment and appliances; and by 
increasing the percentage of renewable electricity generation through development of wind and solar 
power. 

In developing these measures, we will review existing City programs and other efforts that work to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, looking for potential improvements and expansions to, and 
coordination between these programs 

Provide review and support on implementation plan 

The fifth and final step is to create an implementation plan to carry out the measures described in the 
Local Action Plan. It will include specific budgets, time lines and assignment of responsibilities as well 
as indicators to help gauge success. We recognize that obtaining consensus between both the participants 
and other affected stakeholders is essential to the successful implementation of the Action Plan. 



26 



lepartrrrent of the Environment;; City an 
efephone: (4T5^55^39Q:*Fax: '(41.5 
imail-: Ehvfranment@cr;sffiCa-.us ~vmw. 



: 





Attachment III 
Page 1 of 1 



SF Environment 



WILLIE L. BROWN. JR. 
Mayor 

JARED BLUMENFELD 
Director 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: Harvey Rose 
FROM: Mark Westlund 
DATE: December 13,2001 
RE: Brown Vence & Associates 



This is to confirm that the Department of the Enviornment has not entered into any financial obligation 
with Brown Vence & Associates to date for work on the Local Climate Action Plan. 



27 



m 



' " •-■.■_-•" 



wiranmerrt@a. 



£af-'San".Franrisca 

I93.» 1 1 Grove Street San; Fran 

nrFientcorh. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-2180 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Treasure Island Development Authority 

Resolution approving and authorizing the Treasure Island 
Development Authority to modify its Cooperative 
Agreement with the Navy in order to extend the 
Agreement to June 30, 2002 (see Comment No. 4) and to 
provide for an additional reimbursement of $145,000 
payable by the Navy to the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. 

On May 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved 
Resolution No. 380-97, authorizing the Mayor's Treasure 
Island Project Office to establish a nonprofit public 
benefit corporation known as the Treasure Island 
Development Authority to act as a single entity focused 
on the planning, redevelopment, reconstruction, 
rehabilitation, reuse and conversion of Treasure Island 
and Yerba Buena Island for the public interest, 
convenience, welfare and common benefit of the 
inhabitants of the City. On September 30, 1997, the 
Navy closed Treasure Island 1 as an active Naval Base. 
The California Legislature subsequently approved the 
Treasure Island Conversion Act of 1997, which designated 
the Treasure Island Development Authority as a trustee 
of the State Tidelands Trust and as the Redevelopment 
Agency for Treasure Island. 

On October 1, 1997, concurrent with the operational 
closure of the Naval Base, the City entered into a 
Cooperative Agreement with the Navy, with approval 
from the Board of Supervisors, in which the City agreed to 
assume responsibility for the following caretaker services 
on Treasure Island: (1) operation and maintenance for the 
water, waste water, storm water, electric and gas utility 
systems on the Naval Base, (2) public health, security and 
safety services, (3) grounds and street maintenance and 
repair, and (4) property management. Subsequently, the 
Cooperative Agreement was modified, with the approval 
of the Board of Supervisors (File 98-1751), to make the 



1 All references to "Treasure Island" in the proposed Cooperative Agreement refer to the entire 
former Treasure Island Naval Station, which included the adjoining Yerba Buena Island. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Treasure Island Development Authority, rather than the 
City, the party to the Cooperative Agreement, and the 
Cooperative Agreement was extended for an additional 
one-year period, from October 1, 1998 to September 30, 
1999 (coinciding with the Federal fiscal year). In 1999, 
the Board of Supervisors again approved an extension of 
the Cooperative Agreement, for the period from October 1, 
1999 to September 30, 2000 (File 99-1970). In March of 

2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a retroactive 
extension of the Cooperative Agreement, for the period 
from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001 (File 01- 
0372). According to Mr. Proud this is the fifth time the 
Department has requested Board of Supervisors approval 
to modify the Cooperative Agreement. Mr. Proud further 
states that this subject resolution is for the 14 th 
modification because there have been other technical 
modifications made to the Cooperative Agreement which 
did not require approval of the Board of Supervisors, 
according to Mr. Proud. (See Comment No. 6.) 

This proposed resolution would approve an extension to 
the existing Cooperative Agreement between the Navy 
and the Treasure Island Development Authority, for the 
one-year period from October 1, 2001 to September 30, 

2002. The proposed extended Cooperative Agreement also 
provides for an additional Navy reimbursement to the 
Treasure Island Development Authority of $145,000. 

For each of the prior four years of the Cooperative 
Agreement, as well as the proposed fifth year, the Navy 
agreed to reimburse the following amounts to the City to 
assist in funding the costs of providing the above 
described caretaker services at Treasure Island: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Year of Cooperative Agreement 

(based on Federal Fiscal Year of 
October 1 through September 30) 


Amount of 

Reimbursements 

by Navy to the 

City 


FY 1997-1998 


$6,058,214 


FY 1998-1999 


4,000,000 


FY 1999-2000 


2,500,000 


FY 2000-2001 


145,000 


FY 2001-2002 (Subject of this 
proposed request) 


145,000 


Total 


$12,848,214 



Mr. Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority advises that under the original 1997 
Cooperative Agreement, the Navy did not provide the 
Treasure Island Development Authority with a written 
schedule of annual reimbursement amounts and has not 
submitted such a schedule to date. 



However, Mr. Proud stated that the Treasure Island 
Development Authority was advised by the Navy that the 
Navy reimbursements would be reduced on an annual 
basis and that the elimination of all such 
reimbursements, of Navy funding would eventually occur 
as the Treasure Island Development Authority increased 
the amount of property it leased from the Navy. 

The proposed amount of $145,000 to be reimbursed by the 
Navy to the Treasure Island Development Authority for 
FY 2001-2002 would be the identical amount of the 
reimbursement received from the Navy for FY 2000-2001. 

According to Mr. Proud, it is the Navy's policy to fund 
only those services which the Navy itself would perform 
on a closed Naval Station. Mr. Proud advises that the 
amount of the above annual reimbursements, provided to 
the Treasure Island Development Authority by the Navy, 
was established by the Navy and was based on the 
estimated costs for the Navy to provide the services and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

was not based on the estimated costs of the City. 
According to Mr. Proud, in executing the Cooperative 
Agreement with the Navy, and based on advice from the 
Navy, the Treasure Island Development Authority 
understood that the Navy would be decreasing its annual 
reimbursement: (a) as the City moved closer to acquiring 
full ownership of Treasure Island, which Mr. Proud 
advises is expected to occur by the end of calendar year 
2002, and (b) as the Treasure Island Development 
Authority leased additional areas of the former Naval 
Base from the Navy for revenue generation purposes. Mr. 
Proud advises that, in past years, the Treasure Island 
Development Authority has offset the annual reductions 
in monies reimbursed by the Navy with increased 
revenues derived from rentals on Treasure Island. 

Treasure Island's FY 2001-2002 budget, as finally 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, totals $9,481,055. 
The source of funds supporting these expenditures include 
Property Rentals of $6,211,435 and Interdepartmental 
Recoveries of $3,269,620 consisting of a) Fire Department 
sublease payments of $1,800,000 for a training facility 
used by the Fire Department; b) Sheriffs Department 
sublease payments of $269,620 for the Treasure Island 
Brig used by the Sheriffs Department; and, c) Police 
Department sublease payments of $1,200,000 for a 
training facility to have been used by the Police 
Department. 

However, in July of 2001, the Finance Committee 
disapproved a proposed sublease agreement between the 
Police Department and the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. Disapproval of that sublease therefore reduced 
the Treasure Island Development Authority's total 
funding sources by $1,200,000 from $9,481,055, to 
$8,281,055. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Proud reports that through negotiations, the Navy 

had agreed to make one last annual reimbursement to the 
City of $145,000 for Federal Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 
Subsequently, according to Mr. Proud, the Treasure 
Island Development Authority negotiated an additional 
reimbursement payment to be made by the Navy of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$145,000 for Federal Fiscal Year 2001-2002 whicb is to be 
the last Navy reimbursement according to Mr. Proud. 

2. Mr. Proud advises that the $145,000 to be provided 
for Federal Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would serve as a 
funding source for the FY 2001-2002 Treasure Island 
budget. However, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority would not be required to request approval of 
the Board of Supervisors in order to expend such revenues 
since these revenues will be used for previously approved 
expenditures included in the Treasure Island 
Development Authority's FY 2001-2002 budget. 

3. As previously noted, the Agreement would extend the 
existing Cooperative Agreement between the Navy and 
the Treasure Island Development Authority for the one- 
year period from October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002. 
Mr. Proud advises that the Treasure Island Development 
Authority did not obtain approval from the Board of 
Supervisors to extend the Agreement prior to October 1, 

2001 because the Navy had advised the Treasure Island 
Development Authority that no reimbursements would be 
provided by the Navy for caretaker services for FY 2001- 
2002. Therefore, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority delayed final approval of the proposed extended 
Cooperative Agreement in order to negotiate the subject 
payment of an additional $145,000 reimbursement from 
the Navy for the period of October 1, 2001 to September 
30, 2002. Therefore the proposed resolution should be 
amended to provide for retroactivity to October 1, 2001. 

4. The proposed Agreement is to be extended for one year 
which would make the expiration date September 30, 

2002 and not June 30, 2002 as stated in the proposed 
resolution. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to state that the Agreement would expire on 
September 30, 2002, and not June 30, 2002, thus 
correcting language in the title and body of the resolution 
stating that the proposed Agreement would expire on 
June 30, 2002. 

5. Although the title of the subject resolution states the 
modification of the Cooperative Agreement is for an 
amount "not to exceed $145,000," Ms. Eila Arbuckle of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Treasure Island Development Authority reports that the 
amount of the modification is exactly $145,000. 
Therefore, the title of the resolution should be amended to 
delete the words "not to exceed." 

6. Although the title of the subject resolution states that 
the subject modification of the Cooperative Agreement is 
the 11 th modification, Mr. Proud reports that the subject 
modification is the 14 th modification. Therefore, the title 
of the resolution should be amended to change the word 
"11 th " to instead say "14 th ." 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to state that the 

proposed Cooperative Agreement with the Navy will 
expire on September 30, 2002, and not on June 30, 2002, 
thereby correcting language in the title and body of the 
resolution, in accordance with Comment No. 4 above. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution for retroactivity to 
October 1, 2001, in accordance with Comment No. 3 
above. 

3. Amend the proposed resolution to delete the words 
"not to exceed" in the Title of the resolution, in accordance 
with Comment No. 5 above. 

4. Amend the proposed resolution to change the word 
"11 th " to the word "14 th ," in accordance with Comment No. 
6 above. 

5. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 01-2183 

Department: Business and Economic Development, Treasure Island 

Development Authority 

Item: Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Treasure 

Island Development Authority (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 
budget), in the amount of $406,290 representing six 
months of Salaries and Fringe Benefits for Treasure 
Island staff. 

Description: In the FY 2001-2002 budget, the Board of Supervisors 

appropriated and placed on reserve $406,290 for salaries 
and fringe benefits for Treasure Island. The amount of 
$406,290 represents 50 percent, or six months, of the 
Treasure Island Development Authority's Salaries and 
Fringe Benefits for 12 Special Assistant positions. As 
listed in the attached memo (Attachment I), provided by 
the Treasure Island Development Authority, the 
Department has twelve full-time Special Assistant 
positions, including six positions covered by the Municipal 
Employees Association (MEA). The six Special Assistant 
positions covered by MEA have been provisionally 
reclassified to new management classifications under the 
Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan, 
effective July 1, 2001. (See Comment No. 3) 

Mr. Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority, states that the Department of Human 
Resources (DHR) reviewed the Treasure Island Special 
Assistant positions as part of the review of the 
Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP). 
Ms. Ana Borja of DHR advises that DHR is currently 
conducting a classification study of all Business and 
Economic Development Department positions, including 
the 12 Special Assistant Treasure Island Development 
Authority positions (six positions covered by MEA plus six 
non-MEA positions). Ms. Borja states that the six 
classifications that are not represented by the MEA are 
currently being reviewed by DHR and that DHR will have 
completed preliminary classification recommendations for 
those non-MCCP positions by mid-January. Ms. Borja 
further advises that those Treasure Island Development 
Authority Special Assistant positions included in the 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

MCCP have been included in the review of the MCCP as 
have all applicable Special Assistant positions in City 
departments. 

Comments: 1. Attachment I, provided by the Treasure Island 

Development Authority, provides details on the 12 Special 
Assistant budgeted positions. According to Ms. Arbuckle, 
and as listed in the Attachment, the Treasure Island 
Development Authority currently has two vacant 
positions: (a) one 1367 Special Assistant VIII, and (b) one 
1368 Special Assistant IX. 

2. Treasure Island's FY 2001-2002 budget, as finally 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, totals $9,481,055. 
The source of funds supporting these expenditures include 
Property Rentals of $6,211,435 and Interdepartmental 
Recoveries of $3,269,620, consisting of: a) Fire 
Department sublease payments of $1,800,000 for a 
training facility used by the Fire Department; b) Sheriffs 
Department sublease payments of $269,620 for the 
Treasure Island Brig used by the Sheriffs Department; 
and, c) Police Department sublease payments of 
$1,200,000 for a training facility that would have been 
used by the Police Department. 

However, in July of 2001, the Finance Committee 
disapproved a proposed sublease agreement between the 
Police Department and the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. Disapproval of this sublease agreement 
therefore reduced the Treasure Island Development 
Authority's total sources of funds by $1,200,000 from 
$9,481,055 to $8,281,055. 

Ms. Arbuckle reports that revised revenue projections 
show a $942,301 net decrease in expected revenue for the 
Treasure Island Development Authority, which is due to 
the loss of the Police Department sublease revenues in 
the amount of $1,200,000, a revenue reduction of 
$271,197 m commercial rentals, offset by a net increase in 
other revenues of $528,896. According to Ms. Arbuckle the 
Treasure Island Development Authority is working on 
efforts to reduce expenditures to offset the lost revenue, 
including a reduction in the cost of Fire Department 
services as discussed on the following page. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Attachment II includes a budget projection provided by 
the Treasure Island Development Authority. As shown in 
Attachment II, Treasure Island's original budget included 
revenue of $9,481,055 and current revenue projections of 
$8,538,754. The resulting revenue deficiency of $942,301 
is offset by projected reduced expenditures of $293,856 
(original budgeted total expenditures of $9,481,055 as 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, less projected 
actual expenditures of $9,187,199 as listed in Attachment 
II) for a net budget shortfall $648,445 ($942,301 in 
reduced revenues less $293,856 in reduced expenditures). 

Treasure Island's FY 2001-2002 budget includes work 
order expenditures of $4,154,001 for Fire Department 
Services provided on Treasure Island. According to Ms. 
Anne Marie Conroy, Executive Director of the Treasure 
Island Development Authority, Treasure Island has 
concluded that, based on an analysis of Fire Department 
dispatches from the Treasure Island and regulations 
under the Tideland's Trust (Burton Act) that govern the 
use of Treasure Island revenues, the Treasure Island 
Development Authority is preparing a proposal to reduce 
the assessment of Fire Department costs to be funded by 
the Treasure Island Development Authority. Ms. Conroy 
adds that the City Attorney is currently preparing a 
memorandum on this issue and that Treasure Island will 
be submitting a proposal to the Board of Supervisors in 
January of 2002 to reduce Treasure Island expenditures 
for Fire Department services on Treasure Island. 
According to Ms. Conroy, Board of Supervisors approval of 
such a proposal would eliminate the projected Treasure 
Island net budget shortfall of $648,445 and make funds 
available for other purposes. 

The Budget Analyst notes that a decrease in funding from 
Treasure Island for Fire Department services will require 
increased costs from the General Fund for such Fire 
Department expenditures unless there is a reduction in 
the Fire Department's budget for such expenditures. 

3. As stated in the Budget Analyst's report for File 01- 
1818, heard by the Finance Committee on December 12, 
2001, the Board of Supervisors, placed a reserve of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 19, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Recommendations: 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



$15,260,220 in the FY 2001-2002 budget of 36 City 
Departments to fund six months of salaries and fringe 
benefits for the period from January 1, 2002 through June 
30, 2002 for 276 former Special Assistant positions 
included in the MCCP. The Finance Committee released 
one month of salaries for the MCCP reserve, pending 
completion of negotiations between the City and MEA at 
its meeting of December 12, 2001 (File 01-1818). 

The Budget Analyst therefore recommends the release of 
one month of Salaries and Fringe Benefits for the 
Treasure Island Development Authority positions, or 
$67,715, with the balance of $338,575 for five months 
Salaries and Fringe Benefits remaining on reserve, 
pending the presentation to the Board of Supervisors of 
the Treasure Island Development Authority's plan for the 
reclassification of the six non-MEA positions and the 
results of negotiations between the City and MEA and the 
completion of the review of all MCCP positions including 
the six Treasure Island Development Authority positions 
covered by the MEA. 

1. Approve the release of $67,715, representing one 
month of Salaries and Fringe Benefits of $406,290, as 
discussed in Comment No. 3 above. 

2. Continue to reserve $338,575 pending the presentation 
to the Board of Supervisors of the Treasure Island 
Development Authority's and Department of Human 
Resources plan for the reclassification of non-MEA 
positions and the results of negotiations between the City 
and MEA and the completion of the review of all MCCP 
positions as discussed in Comment No. 3 above. 



Harvey M. Rose 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



MEMORANDUM 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 5 

December 11, 2001 



TO: 



Budget Analyst 
Attn: Sarah Graham 



FROM: I reasire Island Development Authority 
Eila Arbuckle, Finance Manager 

R£: 12/19/01 Finance Committee Hearing on Request to Release 

Reserved Salary Budget 

Release of Reserves 

At the time of FY02 budget approval, the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee placed one 
half of Treasure Island's salary budget, S406,290, on reserve. Actual permanent salary expenses 
through 12/31/01 are projected to be S3 97, 129, and through 6/30/02 are projected to be 
S401.101. Tnis will result in a total FY02 permanent salary expense of $798,230 if no changes 
are made. 



Through 12/31/01 







D 


udget Actual 


Class Grade 


Step 


Annual 6 


months 6 months 


0943 0S43C 


7+ 


155.565 


77,783 


77,733 


0933 0933C 


6 


105,456 


52,728 


52.728 


0931 0S31C 


6 


91,078 


45,539 


45.539 


0922 0922C 


6 


78,702 


39,351 


39,351 


0922 0922C 


4 


71,370 


35,585 


35,685 


0922 0922C 


3 


87,964 


33,932 


33,982 


1369 06455 


5 


67,314 


33,657 


33,657 


1368 06295 


5 


62,270 


31,135 


18,162 


1367 06145 


5 


57,878 


28,939 





1366 05995 


2 


37.622 


18,811 


18,811 


1363 05555 


5 


43,420 


21,710 


21,710 


1363 05555 


3 


39,442 


19,721 


19,721 


TOTAL 




878,081 


439,041 


397,129 


Through 6/30/02 








through 
12/31/01 




B 


udget 




+ through 


Class Grade St 


ep Annual 6 


months 


6/30/02 


0943 0943O 


7^ 


158.576 


79,338 


157,121 


0933 0933D 


6 


107,562 


53,781 


106,509 


0931 0931 D 


6 


92,924 


46,462 


92.001 


0922 0922D 


6 


80,252 


40.131 


79,4e2 


0322 0922D 


4 


72,300 


36.400 


72.065 


0922 0922D 


2 


69,316 


34.653 


63,540 


1369 06495 


5 


68.640 


34,320 


67.977 


7358 06335 


5 


63,494 





18,162 VACANT 


1367 06185 


5 


58,994 





VACANT 


1366 06035 


2 


47.398 


23,599 


42,510 


1263 05595 


5 


54,860 


27,430 


49,140 


1363 05595 


3 


49,764 


24,882 


44,603 


TO "A. 




92^.590 


401,101 


798,230 



Attachment I 
Paee Z ot i 



Please see attachment 1 for brief position descriptions. 

Classification Changes 

As part of the FY 01 budget submission from the Authority to the Mayor's Budget Office, a 
request was made to have two positions reclassified to reflect a substantial increase in 
responsibilities. Concurrent with the budget process, the Authority received approval from the 
both the Mayor and from Department of Human Resources (DHR) for the reclassifications. 
However, when the FY 01 budget was submitted to the Board for consideration, the position 
changes were not included as anticipated. Therefore, the FY01 budget did noi include two 
positions whose reclassifications had been approved by the Mayor prior to the start of the fiscal 
year while the paperwork processing was underway. This issue is limited to two positions: 
Authority Secretary and Leasing Specialist and Project Administrator as set forth below. In an 
effort to correct this, the Authority again requested reclassification of the two positions as part of 
its FY02 budget. However, at the FY 02 budget hearings, the Board denied the reclassifications 
and placed 1/2 of the Authority's salaries on reserve pending the DHR Director's review of all 
special assistant positions. 

TI's FY02 budget submittal also sought to provide correct position classifications to meet TI's 
needs for the forthcoming fiscal year. The following paragraphs briefly describe trie changes in 
classifications included in TI's FY02 budget submittal. 

Facilities Manager/Deputy Director: On May 10, 1999, Mayor Brown authorized a position 
change for the TI Facilities Manager. Hired as a 1 374 in July 1 998, the incumbent was promoted 
to a 1376 because of the increased responsibilities that accompanied his designation as Deputy- 
Director. Pursuant to the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP) for 
all special assistants as prepared by the Director of Human Resources, this position was 
classified as 0933C on July 1, 2001. The incumbent Deputy Director died in April 2001 leaving 
the 1376 position open. 

Development Director/Deputy Director: On July 1, 2000, a 1372 position was transferred from 
the Mayor's Office of Economic Development (MOED) to TI and was promoted by Mayor 
Brown to a 1373 position. On July 1, 2001, the incumbent became Deputy Director and assumed 
the open 1376 position, subsequently reclassified by DHR as a 0933. 

Authority Secretary/Leasing Specialist: Hired as a 1366 (assistant to executive director) in 
January 1998, the incumbent was promoted to a 1367 by Mayor Brown on 5/10/99 because of a 
significant increase in her assigned responsibilities. In the FY00 budget, the incumbent was 
placed in a new 1368 slot but was paid as a 1367. On July 1, 2000, Mayor Brown authorized a 
reclassification of the position to a 1372 when the incumbent became Authority 
Secretary/Leasing Specialist. For FY02, the incumbent Pursuant to the Citywide Managcmenl 
Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP) for all special assistants as prepared by the Director 
of Human Resources, this position was classified as 0922C on July 1, 2001 . 

Project Administrator: Hired as a 1366 on 6/1/99, Mayor Brown authorized a position change 
for the incumbent ;o a 1372 for FY01 to reflect substantially increased responsibilities assumed 
by the incumbent. .As noted earlier, the change was not included in the budget submitted to the 
3oa r d by the Mayor's 3udget Office. Thus, the Treasure Island Pr*01 budget pro\ id:d a I 366 
slot for a 1 372 incumbent. For FY 02, the incumbent was placed in a vacant 1372 position made 
available by the departure of the Special Projects Manager. Pursuant to the Citywide 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 5 



Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP) for all special assistants as prepared by 
the' Director of Human Resources, this position was classified as 0922C. The 1366 position 
remains in the budget. 

Revenue Projections & Loss of Police Lease Revenue 

Attachment 2 is a spreadsheet showing TI's FY02 approved budget and revised revenue 
projections. This shows: 

• A decrease of S271,197 in projected revenues from commercial leasing (index code 
210018). This decrease is attributable to the loss of the Nash Bndges television series as 
a tenant (the program was cancelled). 

• A decrease of S50.000 in projected revenues from TT film permits (index code 210019) 
also attributable to the loss of Nash Bndges. 

• An increase of $25,000 in projected revenues from manna operation (index code 210021) 
due to increased activity. 

• .An increase of 5557,119 in projected revenues from TI housing due to release of 
additional housing units. 

• A decrease of SI. 208, 749 m projected interdepartmental recovery to reflect the loss of the 
police department lease. 

These revised revenue projections result in a decrease to TI's revenue budget of 5942,301. 



Balancing the Budget 

In addressing the loss of a major tenant (Nash Bridges) Tl has sought to increase revenues and to 
incur as few expenses as possible. We were able to increase commercial revenues by increasing 
the lay-down space for one Bay Bridge contractor and are actively soliciting other Bay Bndge 
contractors for temporary use of TI space and facilities. However, our major focus has been to 
limit all expenses. It should be noted, however, that the Authority is in the process of finalizing 
a report to the Finance Committee which determines, from a legal standpoint, what expenses 
(i.e.. Fire) can be paid by a Tidelands Trust property. As such, the Authority is of the opinion 
that at least one half of assessed fire costs are not attributable to the Trust property and should be 
borne by the general fund, thus, substantially reducing TI's Expense Budget. 

Status of the RFQ 

Tnt Authority has completed the RFQ process and is currently preparing a Request for Proposal 
(RFP) for distribution. The Authority expects to receive the response to the RFP by mid-summer 
and make a final determination regarding master development at that time. 



Questions regarding the Cooperauve Agreement were sent under separate cover. 



40 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 5 



CLASS CLASS 

(Current) (FY02 BUDGET 

REQUEST) 

0943 Manager XII 



0933 Manager IX 



0931 Manager VII 



0922 Manager V 



0922 Manager V 



Attachment 1, 12/11/01 
POSITION DESCRIPTION 



Executive Director responsible for overall 
project strategy and management, external 
communications 

Deputy Executive Director & Development 
Director responsible for directing reuse 
planning activities including supervision of 
acquisition negotiations, reuse planning, EIR 
preparation, management of Marina 
development negotiations 

Finance Manager responsible for budget 
preparation, management of accounting 
activities, and preparation of contracts 

Commission Secretary & Leasing Specialist 
responsible for commission scheduling and 
agenda, and manages commercial tenant. 
housing, and cellsite leases 

Port Operations Manager responsible for use 
permits for piers, barge rentals and 
emergency planning, ferry service planning, 
supports Development Director with marina 
leases and marina development issues; staff 
for TI Citizens Advisorv Gtoud 



41 



Attachment I 
Page 5 ot 5 



0922 Manager V 



Project Administrator responsible for office 
management including telephone and 
telecommunications services, equipment 
maintenance, staff management, liaison to 
the Mayor's office for personnel matters, 
assistant to Finance Manager for accounting 
transactions 



1369 



136] 



1369 



1367 



1363 



Special Events Coordinator responsible for 
scheduling use of event venues, event venue 
maintenance, issuance of special event use 
permits, and film permits 

Assistant to Executive Director (person who 
held this position in FY00 as a 1367 was 
promoted to Commission Secretary - /Leasing 
Specialist) incumbent in position is paid as a 
1363 (tx'ddown) 

Assistant to Deputy Executive Director, 
coordinates maintenance activities with DPW 



1363 1363 



Receptionist; handles incoming telephone 
calls, faxes, mail login and distribution, 
greets visitors to office, allocates use of 
conference rooms and maintains inventory 
of office supplies, orders office supplies 



42 



Attachment II 



FY 2001-2002 

Treasure Island Development Authority 

TOTAL NET REVENUES 

TOTAL REVENUES LESS RECOVERY 

Misc. Revenues (210009) 

Tl Special Events Revenues (210016) 

Y8I Special Events Revenues (210017) 

Tl Commercial Revenues (210018) 

Tl Film Permit Revenues (210019) 

YBI Film Permit/ Cellsite Lease Revenues (210020) 

Manna Revenues (210021) 

Tl Housing Revenues (210022) 

YBI Housing Revenues (210023) 

(LESS POLICE LEASE) 
NET REVENUES LESS NET EXPENSES 



FY02 BUDGET 



CURRENT 

8,538,754.00 

6,477,883.00 

751.00 

400.000.00 

4.765.00 

613.777.00 

10.000.00 

125.000.00 

35.000.00 

4,868.580.00 

420.000.00 

3.269.620.00 

-1,208,749.00 

-648,445.00 



ORIGINAL 

9,481,055 00 

6,211,435.00 

0.00 

400.000.00 

0.00 

884.974.00 

60,000.00 

125,000.00 

10.000.00 

4.311,461.00 

420.000.00 

3.269.620.00 



TOTAL EXPENSES 



9,187,199.00 



9,187,199.00 



TOTAL PERSONNEL 975,331.00 

TOTAL NON PERSONNEUNON CITY DEPTS 1,946,689.00 

TOTAL SERVICES CITY DEPARTMENTS 6,265,179.00 



975,331.00 
1,946,689.00 
6,265,179.00 



LI 



42 44 2 



* HOI VI ii \ 
a BINDI in LTD 1 
A UTICA OMAHA NE 

2004 *